Things that are so obvious and ingrained that no one even thinks about them.
Here’s a few:
All US americans can go to Mexico EASILY. You’re supposed to have a passport but you don’t even need one (for car/foot crossing). Versus, it’s really hard for Mexicans, who aren’t wealthy, to secure a VISA to enter the US. I’m sure there are corollaries in other geo-regions.
Another one is wealthy countries having access to vaccines far ahead of “poor” countries.
In US, we might pay lip service to equal child-hood education but most of the funding pulls from local taxes so some kids might receive ~$10000 in spending while another receives $2000. I’m not looking it up at the moment, but I’m SURE there are strong racial stratas.
"Violence isn't the answer" regarding Palestine
i'm sure the savage arabs haven't heard of non-violence thanks for letting them know. It's just weird eugenicist shit, because these white people would also be violent had they been born under the conditions of colonial subjugation
The ENTIRE fucking reason America claims it was allowed to exist is that George Fucking Washington and his associates were SUFFICIENTLY OPPRESSED by the British government, to the point where it became permissible to fire 70 caliber lead balls into soldiers skulls.
But black and brown people should just fucking take it I guess
Not to mention, the american revolution happened because the settlers wanted to keep their slaves, keep expanding their colonies and genociding indigenous people, and didn't want to pay taxes on shit. And it's permissible and noble for them to revolt under those conditions
Meanwhile it's bad when Palestinians rise up when they have been refugees and ethnically cleansed for 75 years
That happened a long time ago! We're so much more sophisticated now (no we're not just pulling the ladder up after ourselves).
This also goes with the States. we learned about MLK jr. a lot in school and he "peacefully protested." But we weren't taught much about Malcolm X or Fred Hampton because they were "violent thugs".
We weren't taught that King was a socialist but some classes called Malcolm X and Hampton socialist or communist. Which rolled into how the Black Panthers were "a violent gang" instead of a group of inner city poor people doing mutual aid for impoverished neighborhoods and poor schools.
This is a classic cartoon lol.
I'm actually reading Jesus and John Wayne and a lot of evangelicals tried to use him as one of their guys alongside Lincoln and other clearly not conservatives. It's more crazy because as I read this book a ton of it echoes what we have going on currently in the evangelical groups around the country.
Reglious or not, I think it's worth a read so far.
And Palestinians never tried non violent resistance no just want to kill kill kill
Sure would be embarrassing for libs if there was some sort of Great March of Return within the last 5 years where civilian protests were shot with live ammo.
"Violence isn't the answer" period.
It's fine to systematically oppress and destroy people slowly in a system designed to harness their survival drive to sacrifice their labor value but if those people realize what's happening and fight back it's unacceptable.
Also the whole idea of people saying "violence is never the answer" ignoring the entirety of human nature and calling into question why every single nation has a military.
Violence is pretty much always the answer (in an organized, strategic manner. No
)It's a pretty common assumption that if people act antisemitic while fighting back against an oppressor, their struggle should be discarded and condemned by the international community. Thoughts?
When anyone tells you violence isn't the answer, they are either ignorant non-thinkers or they are trying to manipulate you. Throughout the history of the world, violence has always been the answer. This place sucks.
because these white people would also be violent had they been born under the conditions of colonial subjugation
Gestures at the American War of Independence
And that was just the diet version of colonial subjugation.
They got brain-washed by a combination of comfort and "peaceful" eastern religious influence by the likes of Gandhi.
Treating the usian "founding fathers" as democracy-loving freedom fighters
Their deification in general gets on my nerves. Everything they've ever said or written is treated as infallible words of god and nobody may ever dispute them.
I suppose the British considered them to be rebels, insurrectionists, or maybe even terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?
The British press and government explicitly called them terrorists.
But the other side of it is just as laughable. Whenever the framers of the constitution wrote about what they were trying to do, they would endlessly hand-wring about how bad it would be for everyone to have a say in government. They thought only rich land-owning men had proved themselves worthy to hold power. You know, them and all their friends. The american "revolution" had more in common with a coup than any sort of real liberatory movement.
It's like Bezos and Elon being the "founding fathers" of an independent US West Coast, nothing revolutionary about it.
Well it was still a step in the right direction, distributing power a bit more locally instead of living as a colony under a monarchical foreign power. You may also recall that initially they went too far in decentralizing power before the Constitution replaced the articles of confederation. Even then voting rights were mostly decided by each state, some allowing non land owners and even free black men (though sometimes later removing that right) to vote pre 1800s. Whatever they may have discussed, voting and ability to participate in government was enjoyed by over half of the citizens, which is a significant improvement over the foreign tyrant they had previously. But regardless of how the British tried to label colonial rebels, and regardless of how much the rebels didn't get right, I'm on the side of the historical revolutionaries.
I would love to know your opinion of the CPC within this context. You have made it clear that you support American revolutionaries if only because their system was ostensibly better than the one that came before. What about Chinese revolutionaries?
Hmm, interesting question. That depends if you think that the society they have now is better than the one preceding? The two situations aren't entirely analogous since one involved separation from a foreign power while the other involved dismantling of the old culture and society in order to make a brand new one. I think that China is more powerful now than they would be otherwise, had they not gone through their cultural revolution, but it came at a great cost where centuries of culture was destroyed. I don't think it was worth it, but that's also easy for me to say because I don't live there and because my perception is certainly skewed by Western perspectives. I think they lost something of great value with how the cultural revolution played out and the Chinese people are irrecoverably different as a result. Makes me a little bit sad, but we can't change the past, so it doesn't really matter.
You think "destroying centuries of culture" outweighs abolishing extreme poverty, ending feudalism in a country of more than a billion, redistributing land to the peasantry, taking the country from a cycle where every few years millions would die in a famine to being an economic super power, leading the world in space age scientific progress?
I couldn't even be bothered to engage once they tried to imply that the Chinese revolution didn't involve separation from a foreign power. what was the Shanghai International Settlement? they sure don't know, maybe it was a floor wax or a dessert topping.
Parenti quote about evaluating how a country is before and after a revolution, but a bizarre messed up version where he decides Cuba was better off as a colony with no self determination.
Also the environment was devastated and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) died. Also how do you feel about China's current treatment of indigenous Tibetans? Maybe you should take off your red colored glasses and look around.
The environment being devastated is mostly a fair criticism. China is making huge efforts toward sustainability today, but maybe too late to make enough of a difference.
Hundreds of millions died, yes, that's what happens when 80 years go by in a country of hundreds of millions. I don't see your point.
How do I feel about their treatment of indigenous Tibetans? I think China did a heroic thing by ending slave labor in Tibet. I'm not sure if they took the best path toward liberating Tibetan slaves while also not erasing their culture. I don't know if such a thing was possible, and my personal opinion is that if it wasn't, it's preferable for them to be free and not keep a reactionary culture than keep their slave state intact, the same way I don't care about preserving Confederate monuments in the US despite their cultural importance.
All in all, for a real, existing country, China has a really good batting average.
The environment being devastated is mostly a fair criticism.
Show
China was years ahead on the Paris agreement while America was years behind on it. And America imports ~19% of its total annual imports from China lately. Meaning America is relying on Chinese commodity production (and Chinese emissions) for its economic needs, while failing to meet its climate agreement benchmarks. American citizens have a way higher per capita carbon emission than Chinese citizens. China is trying to prepare for climate change by reducing emissions. America is preparing for climate change by scapegoating China and militarizing its border, and enabling genocides in Israel and Yemen.
I agree that in the context of what's going on worldwide, China is doing much better for sustainability than the rest of the world. So, in a sense, criticism is invalid because it would be better directed at the countries with higher emissions per capita, as you say. Criticism doesn't exist in a vacuum and we should steer clear of anticommunism and sinophobia.
On the other hand, there's no way China should keep its level of industrial growth and usage of fossil fuels indefinitely in the face of world threatening climate change. I think it's a fair criticism to make when trying to assess how future socialism should look. In other words, China may be doing very well for itself by keeping per capita emissions very low relative to the rest of the world, but even still, it burns amounts of fossil fuels that are fundamentally at odds with trying to prevent climate collapse. Is that mostly due to Western capital? Yeah, pretty much.
On the other hand, there's no way China should keep its level of industrial growth and usage of fossil fuels indefinitely in the face of world threatening climate change
I agree. That's the scariest part of all of this. If any country decreases its industrial output, it decreases its ability to wage war, which means it increases its chances of getting invaded by a less principled country who continues to increase its industrial output. So all nations basically see decreasing industrial output as letting their guard down and opening themselves up to invasion. And if they get invaded/annexed by more powerful nations who don't care about the climate, their industrial output will still increase, just under a new regime imposed from the outside. So there's a global prisoners' dilemma here. I don't foresee anyone letting their guard down by decreasing industrial output. Significantly below international agreements which already aren't being followed anyway.
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, died directly as a result of the Chinese cultural revolution and Mao's great leap forward and I don't think it should just be brushed off as an unfortunate side effect of a necessary revolution. But I generally agree with the principle behind the rest of it.
How many millions were dying in China in the famines that would happen every few years, in no small part due to the colonialist status quo? It doesn't justify all the excesses of the revolution, but it doesn't help anybody to keep looking for a nuanced position absent of context.
How many people did the American revolutionaries kill in their pursuit of manifest destiny after forming their own nation?
how do you feel about China's current treatment of indigenous Tibetans?
revolutionaries
Calling the founding fathers ”revolutionaries” belongs in this thread.
I always get a kick out of how silly they were and how bad at designing governments they ended up being. Like you pointed out their first attempt was a shitshow, and when you read the federalist papers he outright says the entire plan is for there to be no political parties, if we get those it won't work and we'll all be fucked.
And yet as soon as King George relinquished the presidency we had a two party system, in fact the Constitution more or less makes a two party system inevitable. And it has no provisions for the legislature being unable to legislate etc, basic stuff that the British had already had to solve with their Parliament.
And yet they're supposed to be these incredible architects of a genius system of intricate checks and balances.
Makes you wonder if our success as a nation had more to do with explosive growth, immigration, and opportunity. Or maybe the system worked well under those conditions, but now the whole environment is steady state and it doesn't work quite as well.
I consider them both to be colonialist, genocidal freaks deserving only of a pit
Many civilizations came and went over the ages, displaced by integration into other civilizations or straight up genocide. Most of these we have little record of, other than a few shards of pottery or other artifacts. I'm not advocating for that approach, but you also can't look at history through some kind of idealistic lens, acting like people were any different back then.
yes I hold all cartoonishly evil slavers, colonialists, genocideurs, imperialists and capitalist exploiters to the same standard of deserving to be overthrown by the people they abuse
CW: Depiction of a slave getting whipped and a dog getting hanged on orders of George Washington
Show
I'm not assuming you're being intellectually honest by claiming every civilisation has practised genocidal colonialism, I have complete confidence that you pulled that factoid out of your arse.
This is true. I wonder what the Iroquois thought of George Washington
if I hold you in chains and whip you for not picking cotton fast enough for me, would that just be a "matter of perspective" you smug liberal?
Lol what are you even talking about? How does that relate to my comment?
since you're confused let's trace the entire context of the conversation from the thread title down to here.
Question: What are some obvious racist and chauvinist things that are totally normalized?
Answer (from wombat): Treating the usian "founding fathers" as democracy-loving freedom fighters
Statement (from you): I suppose the British considered them to be rebels, insurrectionists, or maybe even terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?
Question (from me): if I hold you in chains and whip you for not picking cotton fast enough for me, would that just be a "matter of perspective" you smug liberal?
Since the hegemonic perspective of the founding fathers in the US is that they're democracy-loving freedom fighters, it doesn't really matter what the British thought. We're discussing the normalized racism and chauvinism of worshiping a bunch of slave owning proto-bourgeois settler-colonialists. It's not just a matter of perspective. The shit they did to people had real material consequences. Hence my question to you which you didn't answer: if I hold you in chains and whip you for not picking cotton fast enough for me, would that just be a "matter of perspective" you smug liberal? That is. If you were actually treated by me the way the founding fathers treated people, would it still be this vague "matter of perspective" or would you be justified in despising me?
If I were a slave, I would probably be less concerned about who exactly is holding the whip, and more so the fact that I was getting whipped. Whether the colonists were considered terrorists or some kind of freedom fighters would be largely irrelevant to me in that case, despite that perspective mattering a great deal to the rest of the world at the time and even still to this day.
I would probably be less concerned about who exactly is holding the whip, and more so the fact that I was getting whipped
John Brown, Nat Turner, and The Haitian revolutionaries would tell you that those two concerns are identical since the latter concern provides you with your target in regards to how to bring about a real material change in the former concern. If you are a slave, and you want to stop being whipped, you run away. But if you want everyone else to stop getting whipped as well, you fight the slave owners. That is how slavery ended in the United States after all. War with the slave power.
So do you think that slavery would have ended sooner if the American revolution never happened? Do you think there was any net benefit to humanity as a result of the American revolution? Is it possible for good men to do bad things or does bad things make them bad people?
So do you think that slavery would have ended sooner if the American revolution never happened?
Considering the British Crown ended slavery in its colonies in 1833, a full 3 decades before an independent America ended slavery with a civil war? Yes! But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing nor have I argued against the American "revolution," though I will say it was a bourgeois nationalist independence struggle waged by the colonial ruling class against the ruling class in the mother country because the ruling class in the mother country taxed the commercial profits of the ruling class in the colony too much and wouldn't let them expand west against indigenous people as quickly as they wanted to. That's not really a "revolution." War of Independence is a lot more accurate. What happened in Haiti in the 1790s and 1800s was a revolution, and it involved the oppressed class, the slaves, rising up against the ruling class, their masters. Interestingly the American "revolutionaries" for all their talk of "freedom" and "liberty" and "revolution" and "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Jefferson quote) never supported that revolution. In fact they were highly in favor of crushing it (along with Daniel Shay's rebellion), because they were slave owners. And they were in favor of forcing that enslaved people to pay reparations, amounting to most of their annual national GDP, to their former masters, for the better part of 2 centuries. A tax far more tyrannical and impoverishing than anything the British leveled against the likes of the American tobacco planters. And now they are blamed for being poor and underdeveloped despite those absymal economic conditions that was enforced by America and France jointly. Two "democracies" shaking hands as they make sure a state of liberated slaves is in permanent debt.... very interesting how these things are framed.
Do you think there was any net benefit to humanity as a result of the American revolution?
Ask an indigenous American that question. No. In general I don't think it was a "net benefit" to humanity. And I'm an American. I live here. I am part indigenous but being indigenous is more about culture than blood quantum. I wasn't raised in that culture, which was decimated long before I was born.
Is it possible for good men to do bad things or does bad things make them bad people?
Yes it's possible for good men to do bad things and vice versa. But I don't think they were good men in the first place. I think they were bourgeois slave owners who liked to wax poetic about "Freedom" and "Liberty" as though they were the ones who invented these concepts. That's a big part of the American civil religion. The idea that these men somehow invented the representative republican form of government. Like it was some kind of innovation they brought to the table. Their "net benefit to humanity" as you said earlier. But they didn't invent that. They were a bunch of Rome revivalists attempting to resurrect ideas from classical antiquity, which is why America loves the fasces and the marble statues and the ionic columns and the latin phrase mongering. And even if they had somehow invented these concepts, they were still realizing these concepts in a completely hypocritical and incomplete way that was obvious to every abolitionist even back then.
While there is certainly some truth to what you are saying, I feel that your interpretation of events and motivations is way too cynical. But regardless, it's pretty tough to argue that the US has not provided a net gain to humanity, given the advancements in technology, medicine, arts, and so on that could not have occurred in a different society.
I feel that your interpretation of events and motivations is way too cynical.
I certainly don't have any good reason to feel optimistic about the past, present, or future of this imperialist, settler-colonial, capitalist nation which would rather start WW3 than give up a shred of its post WW2 hegemony.
given the advancements in technology, medicine, arts, and so on that could not have occurred in a different society.
What supernatural qualities does the United States have such that, were it removed from history, a bunch of "technology, medicine, arts and so on" would have never been invented? Take the nuclear bomb for example. An American invention. Had America never existed, it still would have been invented, eventually, just somewhere else. Splitting the atom would have occurred to some physicist eventually. Using it as a weapon would have occurred eventually. I'm a staunch materialist about these things. America is just a geopolitical construct. Everything invented in America, by Americans, could have been invented somewhere else, by someone else, under similar circumstances. Technology comes about because a need/desire for it arises, and the materials to create it are available. Not because of the supernatural qualities of the nation.
Oh yes, and there'd be a whole lot less ignorance like this because a whole lot more settler bastards would've been turned into mulch about a hundred-fifty years sooner, with less destruction of the Black and Indigenous. There was no net benefit to humanity; only to the coinpurses of British nobility who were sick of being taxed by their crown.
real shit JAQoffs like this only make me think that neither John Brown nor General Sherman went NEARLY far enough.
native populations were genociding each other before the Europeans ever got involved.
whewwwwwww chile do you smell that caucazoid apologia? who let this settler (try to) cook???
- Show
I don't discuss geopolitics or world history with people who talk like settlers; move along, thank you. You don't want my answer to that JAQoff second question, either. 🤓 ass
If the guy whipping me was deified and seen as a paragon of a man I'd be fucking livid
Sometimes it's more about what that person symbolizes. Take George Floyd for instance. By almost any metric he was not a good person, but he didn't deserve to die, and the way that he died became a symbol, a representation of an entire people who have seen injustice at the hands of the police. George Floyd is practically a saint in the eyes of many, despite all his flaws as a person. So why not the founding fathers?
The founding fathers owned people. Bought and sold them. Denied them basic comforts and dignities. Bred them and then tore apart their families. Raped them and brutalized them.
They engaged in the genocide of native americans. Killing as many as they could and displacing the rest. All so that they could move lines on a map.
To compare these monsters to the progeny of their atrocities is racist. It is unquestionably cruel and unfeeling. Know that I have no respect for you. Know that if I learned we shared any opinion it would cause me to question it.
You want me to ignore all this for America? The country that orchestrated the genocide of native americans? The country that built its bones with the flesh of black people? The primary inspiration for Nazi Germany? The warmongers behind the korean and vietnam war? The country that supported and enabled genocides in bangladesh and indonesia? The country that invaded iraq for oil money? The country that is currently engaged in genocides in both palestine and the congo?
The only people I dehumanized in that post were slavers. Are you really offended over slavers? Is that worth it to you? George Washington wore dentures made out of the teeth of his slaves, Jefferson was a serial rapist who sold his children into slavery.
You accuse me of tribalism for deriding those who used their race to exploit others. What of their tribalism? Of race and class? Gender? They thought that nobody besides landowning white men should have rights, and you think me hating them for it makes me tribal.
Yeah, I don't respect you. You compared a descendant of slaves to a slaver. But I haven't dehumanized you. I don't think you understand what dehumanizing is. I don't have any desire to deny you healthcare, basic needs, safety. I don't want to hurt you physically. I haven't compared you to an animal, or objectified you. My disrespect is based entirely your dehumanization of George Floyd. Something you can control. Something entirely based in your consciousness, something human. Opinions can change.
Please justify the things you say. Nothing you say is supported by any logic or reasoning. Telling me I have "blind" hatred for the founding fathers despite listing the reasons why I do, without addressing those points, is just a waste of time.
How are my political beliefs more tribal than that of the racist and sexist founding fathers?
Are you my enemy? All I did was say I disrespect you for dehumanizing george floyd and excusing slavers. We're just talking. My enemies are defined by material reality, not anger. You could just be another worker. Exploited for the same reasons I am. We could be comrades if you let go of the racism.
Lastly hexbear shows pronouns right next to the username, don't use "guy" when addressing me.
Yeah sorry about that, can't keep track of everyone so I went back to assuming everyone on the internet is a guy. Anyway, do you deny that George Floyd has become larger than life, symbolic and important in a way that is bigger and more pure than he ever was in real life, despite his shortcomings as a person?
Are you going to answer any of my questions?
George Floyd's criminal record is not comparable to owning hundreds of chattel slaves. They are different leagues. The fact that you are trying to force this comparison is deeply racist, just like I said like 5 comments ago.
Even if we entertain your line of thinking I still disagree. George Floyd represents the fight against the white supremacist cruelty of the American police state. The founding fathers represent an America that exists to serve landowning white men. If you want to somehow make that seem like a good thing you have to answer for America's crimes which I listed like 5 comments ago.
The founding fathers do not represent an America that exists to serve landowning white men, at least not to the majority of the country. To many people, they symbolize something else entirely that is bigger and better than the men that they actually were, something noble, independent, freedom-loving, bold, courageous, and all that. Again, regardless of how true it is, they serve as an idea at this point.
But for you they serve as the opposite sort of symbol, one of oppression, greed, selfishness. The founding fathers were both of these, and what they represent to different people depends on perspective and world view.
If it wasn't for the constant propaganda that Americans are exposed to far fewer people would think that the founding fathers symbolize that. People believing in lies doesn't make the crimes of the founding fathers acceptable. And believing those lies causes people to blind themselves to the reality of America and its crimes. When people believe something other than the truth it leads them into a future that doesn't learn from the past.
Look at how much the situation in Palestine is changing the opinions of America. Many people are seeing the full extent of America's violent foreign policy. It's shaking their belief in America as something noble and freedom loving. I believe this is a good thing. More people's political opinions will be rooted in the truth. It could effect how people vote, protest, organize. I think this could lead to positive change.
Are you saying that people shouldn't care about the truth? What is your point exactly? You haven't actually stated any belief. Is it important to you that America is seen as noble, independent, freedom-loving, bold and courageous? Why is it important to you that the founding fathers are seen this way? Why do you think its ok for people to believe lies when they've never been offered the truth? Why do you value the mythology of the founding fathers more than the reality of the founding fathers? You called me childish for caring about the truth of the founding fathers, and for not valuing the lies about the founding fathers. This is insane to me.
The founding fathers were both of these, and what they represent to different people depends on perspective and world view.
Some people's perspective and worldview are wrong. It seems like you think tribalism is when someone thinks their worldview is right and someone else's is wrong. What is your political ideology? That seems like a centrist take if I've ever seen one.
I've been accused of being a centrist before. What makes you think that your world view, your life experience is worth more than mine? Whose experience is more real, more true? I think tribalism is when you think your world view is the only one that matters, that anyone who agrees with it is part of your tribe, and anyone who doesn't see it that way is in a different tribe. Tribalism is instinctive and getting rid of it requires open minded exposure to people with different world views.
George Washington wearing dentures made of slave teeth is not "life experience." Its a simple historical fact. I have no desire to base my beliefs on mythology. I base my beliefs on fact. I cannot have a discussion about Washington without mentioning the facts of his life. This includes talking about his crimes against humanity. You think I am immature and childish because I don't value beliefs about washington unless they are based in the facts of his life. You value mythology and historical fact similarly. Serious discussion requires a foundation of fact. You are fundamentally unserious.
I love how you are so carefully avoiding committing any beliefs or assertions to this discussion. All you do is try and poke holes in what I say. When I respond you hide behind rudimentary, "everything is relative" arguments. You are the philosophical equivalent of, "I know you are but what am I?"
What is your political ideology?
I can't really sum up my ideology or identity in a word or a political team, but in general I'm proud of my country while recognizing that we've had a dark past and we have plenty of work to do today as well, despite great strides and an overall very high quality of life. The fact that we have the luxury of dedicating so much time debating these issues alone is evidence of this.
Probably the single most important phrase in my life when it comes to debating controversial topics is that where there is understanding, there can be no hatred. Everyone has a different life experience, different challenges and trials, different education, different family and upbringing.
Some of my core values are independence, self reliance, charity, forgiveness, hard work, and prudence. I live very modestly but comfortably enough and I got this life because of my upbringing and my own hard work and believe that others can also despite probably having more challenging upbringings. My ancestors immigrated in the early 1900s looking for a better life, chasing the so called American dream, worked as miners in small company owned houses. The first generation was very poor, but subsequent generations have done ok.
I believe that we should live as though we control our own futures, and mostly we do. Our own happiness and contentment in life is at our control, and outside factors beyond our control are not worth compromising on that happiness. It's very similar to ancient stoic philosophy.
I teach my kids the value of hard work, saving money, but giving to less fortunate people. I provide for them, but with few luxuries. If they want something, they need to earn it and get it for themselves. They cannot expect things from other people, but should be thankful and appreciative when others help them, which in turn should inspire them to want to help others.
It is my biggest and most important duty to provide for my family and instill in them my own core values.
I believe that the United States is a great place to raise a family, providing an environment where they can succeed and be free to pursue their own contentment in life.
At the moment I'm having a hard time finding a political team that fits these values, since politics is so focused on hot button issues that serve more to divide people than to actually improve everyone's lives. I'd love it if there were more teams, but the system we have more or less works.
Your political ideology is ”liberal”, although an even more appropriate term would be ”bootlicker”. The only way you see the world is through the lens of ”memememememe fuck you got mine”, and thus you think the US is good because muh treats. You don't stop to consider the butchered civilians or exploited global south residents necessary to get your treats and ”high quality of life”.
Don't try to pretend like your way of thinking is somehow unique or can't be put into a box, maaaaan, because I've seen it a million times before.
Let's be real though, everyone except you are your little tribe is a liberal, which is like 99 percent of the country. So that doesn't really mean much.
Your political ideology is just the status quo. You have a life you're ok with and you just want everyone else to calm down so you can enjoy it. The funny thing is that you have made zero effort to actually justify your ideology. Everyone else has written all these reasons why your line of thinking doesn't work. All you can respond with is, "why can't we all just get along??" Say what you will about my ideology, leftist, making me angrier or unhappy with our politicians and system. I don't spend any energy deluding myself into anything. I'm not surprised when the system fails its people in the ways its intended to. It also helps me connect with many different kinds of people, because I care about their struggles.
but the system we have more or less works.
the system is currently supporting two genocides, one in palestine and one in the congo. What part of your humanity do you have to sacrifice to not care about these atrocities? Are you even aware of how your denial of other's humanity also compromises yours?
You have a cowards ideology.
It's almost like we are speaking different languages, and I'm not surprised to be attacked coming in here. The reason I have a hard time responding to "facts" is that over the years I've spent countless hours researching various topics only to find that you get different answers depending on what you look for. Not only that but truth is different and history gets rewritten over the years. In my youth there were rallying cries to free tibet. People like you protested angrily, guilt tripped average folks about being callous and cruel for not caring. Now years later in this very thread I'm told that the Chinese did a great thing freeing tibetan slaves and so on. It's hard not to be cynical when you can find evidence and justification for anything you want to. I've got right wing friends doing the same thing you are doing, trying to guilt trip me for not paying attention or not caring about the crimes committed by the left. They send me articles and facts all the time. How do you really know what the truth is? Change your algorithm and start looking for evidence to support the opposite perspective and you will start getting different facts. It all starts to feel arbitrary and the only real truth is right in front of you.
Revolutionaries like the people in here are always around. They can't accept injustice and have no answer except to tear it all down and start over.
You can totally get different answers depending on what you're looking for. That doesn't mean they are equally valuable answers. Some evidence is shit. Have you tried vetting your sources? Its a fundamental part of research.
Have you ever taken a philosophy class? The first day is always spent debunking relativist arguments like the ones you make. Have you ever taken a history class? The whole point of the discipline is learning how to source information and piece it together. What about the physical sciences? Engineering? These all require someone to make decisions about how to move forward. Your attitude might help you avoid conflict, might absolve you of responsibility or whatever. But you can't foster community, build bridges, or run tests on relativism. The only reason you believe relativism is because you start with the assumption that the system is good, because it is good for you. Its why the world seems so unintelligible to you. Your foundation is wrong so you can't build anything on top of it.
Considering the amount of right wingers that want to throw me in an oven I'll hold off on the facts aren't real bit. I don't want to be thrown in an oven, that's a fucking fact bud. And the fact that you value their opinion, throw me in an oven, just as highly as my opinion, don't throw in a fucking oven, I consider your relativism dangerous.
They don't want to throw anyone in an oven, and that's a fact. One of my best friends is one of those guys, who I grew up with. He doesn't hate anyone besides "liberals", having nothing to do with skin color or race. Also I have an engineering degree and took every one of those general education classes, economics, philosophy, psychology, etc, but also a master's level elective class that literally was about interpreting and critiquing scientific journal articles. We spent a lot of time finding holes in published works and discussing retractions, enough to make me a little cynical even about "science" itself, let alone news stories. Maybe your "facts" aren't quite as factual as you would like them to be and your truth isn't quite that. But you will also grow less certain about things as you get older, just like I did.
Well, you had a good education. I'm also skeptical of science, but mostly because our science can't be fully separated from capitalism and its incentives.
Why are you talking to me like I'm a teenager? Y'all always pretend to be the adults in the room, very cool very condescending.
They don't want to throw anyone in an oven, and that's a fact.
So you aren't always relativist. You get to side with your buddies against the minorities that their tribe hates. Lovely. I don't give a fuck about your friends. Your friend isn't conservatism, conservatism is conservatism. He's aligned himself how he's aligned himself. With people who want to throw me in a fucking oven you dumb motherfucker. Go peddle your dogshit cowardly ideology somewhere else. People saying they want to kill me is a fucking fact. You are cowardice incarnate.
Stop being such a victim, nobody wants to kill you, they just want to live their lives. I know lots of conservatives and not one of them wants to murder minorities, what are you even talking about?
Seriously, go talk to normal people about normal stuff and knock it off. Yeah there is injustice in the world and we should talk about that, but you can't always live in that space or it will drive you crazy.
Stop being such a victim
people will stop being victims as soon as other people stop being victimizers
stop being this guy:
Show
go talk to normal people about normal stuff and knock it off
let me guess, you're one of the normal people. you have decided this for totally normal reasons, and your normality just exists in a vacuum and isn't imposed by any kind of superstructure.
eah there is injustice in the world and we should talk about that,
no, we shouldn't talk about it. we should put an end to it.
but you can't always live in that space or it will drive you crazy.
people don't choose whether they live in an unjust space or not. they are born into it, and it drives them crazy and kills them. Only people unaffected by it have the liberty of ignoring it.
their criticism of the US founding fathers isn't "blind" but is based on the stuff they did, and how it completely contradicted their professed values of freedom and liberty.
Are you making the case that anyone who doesn't view the founding fathers in the same way, who doesn't passionately hate them without consideration of any good they accomplished, is therefore wrong about everything and incapable of having acceptable opinions on other topics? That sounds like tribalism and is what I was responding to. I mean, if you tell me straight up that my every opinion is wrong and advertise that you have no intention and feel no obligation to have a good faith discussion, then that makes you an extremist, a fanatic, and further dialog is pointless. I enjoy the discussion and challenge engaging with different views, but when my comments get deleted after being personally attacked, then the discussion has probably run it's course.
passionately hate them without consideration of any good they accomplished
this is your characterization. I never said "I HATE THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND REFUSE TO CONSIDER ANYTHING ABOUT THEM AAAAAAAAAAAA."
No. I have carefully considered their entire legacy. Thanks! I am even able to distinguish between those among them who owned slaves, and those among them who were merely friends with slave owners. I am able to distinguish between George Washington, who put down Shay's rebellion, and Benjamin Franklin, who claimed that making the inhabitants of the Earth whiter was a noble pursuit. I am able to distinguish between John Quincy Adams, who wanted slavery abolished eventually (as long as no slave owners got hurt in the process!) and Thomas Jefferson, who actively sexually assaulted his slaves and sold his own children.
I am able to treat them as individuals, assess their legacies, and come to the conclusion that they were bourgeois nationalists, and to the extent that their cause was "progressive" against the British monarchy, is negated entirely by the genocidal settler-colonial territory they lived on, whose economy was based largely on slavery. I am also able to remember that their primary motivation for independence wasn't opposition to monarchy or love of bourgeois republicanism, but anger at taxation, the highest crime a bourgeois individual can suffer. Having their profits decreased.
is therefore wrong about everything and incapable of having acceptable opinions on other topics?
if you're just going to ask questions about things I never said, it's not going to be a very productive conversation
No. I'm not saying that. But you seem uninterested in directly quoting what I did say and responding to it.
That sounds like tribalism and is what I was responding to.
Define this tribalism which so concerns you. What "tribe" have you determined me to be a member of?
I mean, if you tell me straight up that my every opinion is wrong
good thing I never said that. If you said 2+2= 4 I would tell you you're right. Perhaps you're engaged with multiple people and you're becoming increasingly confused. I recommend re-reading everything I've said to you thus far and thinking a bit harder about it.
that makes you an extremist, a fanatic, and further dialog is pointless.
lol. you have decided I am a bunch of scary things and not worth talking to or listening to. This makes me the extreme one.
You just jumped into the middle of a conversation between me and someone else, or maybe I responded to the wrong person. Anyway this particular thread was in response to machiabelly or something like that.
You just jumped into the middle of a conversation between me and someone else
I made that clear when I referred directly to them (the person you were previously speaking to) but then you became confused and spoke to me as though I were them, despite that.
Show
George Floyd is practically a saint in the eyes of many, despite all his flaws as a person.
That was never the point of the protests surrounding his death. The point was to call out police brutality. This was true of all the other anti-police brutality protests before George Floyd as well, regardless of whether the victim had a perfect past or not in each case. The press, both local and national, humanizes some victims of state or corporate violence, while demonizing others. Seemingly without noticing, people too often create tiered systems of moral worth by trying to find “the perfect victim.”
This ill advised search for the perfect Christlike victim, and its corollary desire to smear those with less than perfect pasts, makes humanity conditional, further entrenching negative stereotypes and destructive narratives about entire communities. The difference between a victim of systemic injustice who made mistakes in their life and a person who gets deified despite their mistakes is incalculable. The demonization of George Floyd in the wake of his death was IMMEDIATE. The media did not even wait for his blood to be cold before they started digging up his arrest record, etc. The lionization of the founding fathers on the other hand was overwhelming and immediate, in spite of their slave ownership, and an entire American civil mythology was constructed around that image that for many is still considered unquestionable. That's the difference. You're assuming a total symmetry of context between the contemporary victims of systemic violence and the actual ruling class founders of American society.
I don't assume total symmetry, it's just an analogy that mostly fits. They are all imperfect men who are elevated because of what they symbolize to some people.
George Floyd wasn't "elevated." He was killed, and then people protested police brutality after his death because it was just one highly publicized example among countless similar deaths. To the extent that people drew murals of him etc in the wake of those protests has less to do with him being seen as the best dude who ever lived and more to do with combating the demonization that immediately happened in the wake of his death. Since this sort demonization frequently happens. When Botham Jean was shot in his own apartment by an off duty cop who wandered into the wrong apartment and assumed it was her own, the first thing the news did was point out that he had marijuana in his apartment. This kind of demonization is used to minimize the death and imply that they deserved it. So any "elevation" you perceive is in response to that kind of shit. A man like george washington who owns slaves but yaps about Freedom dying comfortably in his bed and being used as a nationalist symbol for 2 centuries is not the same as a man being killed by a cop and then people protesting his death for a few months. You don't "assume" total symmetry? Good. Stop comparing the two things as though they were alike in a way that is relevant to the conversation. And no. It's not an analogy that fits very well at all. You're comparing the civil mythology of a settler colonial nation to a protest movement against police brutality because they both supposedly "elevated imperfect people."
I found out not too long ago that apparently in polite voteblue society it's still okay to talk about countries being "civilized" where "civilized" essentially means "white". I am used to chauvinism, but that one really got to me (it was about Russia's invasion being the first time in a long time that there was a war between two "civilized" countries).
I remember that headline during the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine "This is the first war of my lifetime between civilized countries". So obvious what they meant.
I remember that headline during the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine "This is the first war of my lifetime between civilized countries". So obvious what they meant.
I kept hearing it's the first war in europe since ww2 and this feels like it goes along the same lines but even weirder
Yugoslavia got its civilized status revoked before it got bombed, apparantly.
I really hated how people talked about "war in Europe!" as something extra horrible and tragic, unlike when it is brown people being at war which doesn't warrant the same moral outrage.
Man, is it so hard for people to understand that different communities in the world are at different stages of development and/or just have different ways of operating than is typical of their own areas?
Society isn't homogeneous and it's pretty basic knowledge
Racial "preferences" in dating. No matter how they cut it, it's racist. Yet people will say "it's ok to have preferences!"
Yeah sure.... I mean back in the day many people "preferred" to not eat with black ppl.... jesus fucking christ the racial preferences in dating really ticks me off (especially when you see someone who is otherwise "liberal" and "hates hate" date only white people)
The very concept of "racial preferences
" is racist calipers shit regardless of contextMost extreme example is the anglo navy employing
servants shenanigansThis is so so widespread that I am very curious about it.
One hypothesis I have is that people believe their sexual inclinations are completely separate from social and cultural influence. That the sexual preferences are somehow innate or beyond influence--even though they clearly are heavily influenced.
At the very least fucking keep it to yourself that you don't date black women or prefer dating east asian women you weirdo agghhh
I like and dislike traits that are strongly stereotypical of certain races
Please tell us what these traits are
I'm kinda torn on this one. For me, I like and dislike traits that are strongly stereotypical of certain races. So much so that, if I were a less self aware person, I'd just express that preference plainly.
I mean yeah, I get you, sometimes I'd prefer to live in a neighborhood that didn't have any of those "pesky blacks and hispanics," but I'd rather not express that plainly either, so I'll just secretly choose to live in a segregated white neighborhood. I'm REALLY TORN ON THIS ONE...
Holy fuck, thank you for quoting the comment, I came in after it was removed. Fucking ghoul shit right there!
You realize that people within each "racial category" can have completely different features.
I remember when lemm.ee used to be the main source of mask-off libs around here, but it seems like dbzer0 has taken its place lately.
"I got jipped" or however it's spelled. We say it all the time in America, but a euro transplant informed me that it's basically a slur for gypsies.
True. Gypsy itself is a slur too, right? Sorry, idk much and European bigotry aside from the meme where Europeans scold us for being a racist country, then turn around and say they want to exterminate the Roma.
Yeah I think so. We have a lot of great threads on Roma culture in Hexbear, I'd recommend checking them out because their culture is really cool. I especially love Romani architecture.
Seriously, check out these sick palaces!
Show
Those look rad. Like someone was building a traditional European house and half way up got bored and decided to finish it as a Chinese pagoda.
Those are often used in Eastern Europe as racist proof of "Look, they're not actually poor and oppressed! They're rich! And they steal from us! So it's okay to hate them."
Wow those buildings are fire. I want to add them to C&C now. I am in love with the roof
hope rozako is alright, she hasn't posted here in a yearHoly shit it's like the majestic sprawl of a plantation house with none of the vile malevolence of southern settler whites
Yeah, but IIRC it's also a situation like indian/native american where sometimes people prefer one term or the other. Like anything else I suppose, never lead with it but if someone corrects you just roll with it.
I learned sorta recently that while some people prefer American Indian there are a ton of people who consider Indian to be something like the soft n word, as in some Native Americans might say it a lot but others shouldnt say it, so people should be careful about not stepping on that.
The groups I'm in avoid the entire issue by saying indigenous. Indigenous peoples were of many nations that were crushed in the genocide of manifest destiny and the not even given American citizenship until the 1920s. Even then, they've been repeadly fucked by the government who has so rarely honored any part of the multitude of treaties we have with the various indigenous nations.
I like the Canadian term of "first Americans". It's not racialized and seems more respectful (not that Canada is at so respectful to them). But it does still highlight the fact that they were so well erased from American history that a blanket term is used for the multitude if ethnicities and nations that were here first.
First Nations is acceptable but First Americans still uses a settler colonial name to describe people of indigenous nations. (America was named after an Italian Explorer, not exactly anything indigenous about that word).
Thanks for the info, I'll change my vocab accordingly.
And they always try to defend this position by saying "But it's different with gypsies- they really do live up to their stereotypes!" while simultaneously faking for support for BLM from abroad.
There are a few acceptable exceptions like "gypsy jazz" but other than those it should have considered a slur.
This is official too. It was decided at the world Roma congress in the 1970s that this is the name they wanted to go by as a community.
When I grew up I never thought anything about where the term jipped ( maybe it's spelled gypped? ) came from, but after hearing jew used as a verb in the same context got me thinking about where the term came from. Not all epiphanies feel good.
Always pay close attention to the epiphanies that don't feel good
I thought it was a reclamation of the phrase, kind of like "Jerry rigged"
The term "g*psy" being used casually, in a way simply used to just talk about the Roma people, and it being the only term most people know for them, is also another racist thing that's normalized.
It's so normalized that they use it all the time in kids cartoons over here.
It's also abysmally ignorant. Roma have been in Europe for centuries, but they originally migrated from India. It was assumed by medieval Europeans that they were from Egypt, because Egypt is in the Bible, and India isn't, so they all knew about Egypt. So they called the the G-slur as a proxy of "Egyptian"
For centuries the word used in Danish for Romas and travellers (why be precise about who we're talking about?) was "Tatars". People didn't know shit about where the Romas came from but Crimea sounded like an exotic place so why not pretend that this is where these exotic people came from? An example of the use of this world is the 1665 legal code that bans "Jews and Tatars" from the country.
Oh yeah. I remember learning about this one. Living in America, I don't think a lot of us are aware of Roma people, and thus don't know it's a racial slur.
I blame Notre Dame. That movie made me think it was more of like a job description like a traveling merchant. I didn't know it referred to a group of people until I had internet.
”Declining birthrates” is considered a normal thing to talk about, even though it only refers to white people.
Condescending attitudes towards any non-
country, like I remember when the US left Afghanistan and a lot of people said stuff along the lines of ”We helped them so much and they still didn't become a good liberal democracy!”.”Declining birthrates” is considered a normal thing to talk about, even though it only refers to white people.
I encourage you not to read any comments sections about declining birthrates in Japan, South Korea, or China. They invariably read like cattle farmers complaining about a bad year, except usually cattle farmers aren't chomping at the bit to go fuck the cows.
cattle farmers aren't chomping at the bit to go fuck the cows.
Welllll…
Yeah that part of Asia is NOT doing well. I think Japan has actually seen an uptick recently, but South Korea has had the same problem for a while now, and it's probably never getting better unless they get liberated by the DPRK.
South Korea is mega fucked but Japan's birthrate is pretty much in line with a bunch of developed nations. There's something kinda gross and wrong when random crackers on the internet will write essays on how Japan is chaste and sexless (lmao) even though it has a higher birthrate than Italy. Could you even imagine someone calling the Italians sexless virgins?
Oh yeah, there's a big-ass bunch of
involved in that particular idea. Europe has just been better able to mask it's "sexless virgins" problem by bombing poorer african countries and taking the civillian population in as refugees.Also I might just add that there was a sort of joke but not really in Denmark back in early 2022, where Denmark was trying to reform it's immigration system (along the obvious
lines) as our industrial corporations were screaming for a bigger workforce, but our population is too racist to just allow "anyone" to move here and work those plentiful jobs. Suddenly the war in Ukraine was breaking out, and a danish comedian said on national tv, that strictly speaking Putin might have just saved the danish economy by creating a bunch of refugees who are highly educated and can thus work our industrial jobs. Immediately after, the danish confederation of industry (bougie union) went out and said that Ukrainians in general are not qualified to do the jobs that their membership wanted done.I don't understand. Doesn't Denmark release twelve new types of people every season? I found some here, for example.
Could you even imagine someone calling the Italians sexless virgins?
wdym imagine. I do it all the time. Fuck' em.
There's something kinda gross and wrong when random crackers on the internet will write essays on how Japan is chaste and sexless (lmao) even though it has a higher birthrate than Italy.
I certainly would be very careful to swing too far the other way and pretend Japan isn't an extremely backwards oppressive patriachy. Yes they have sex of course, but are you just going to ignore the entire context around where and how that sex happens?
If there is a valid criticism here its how these criticis usualy have no socialist or even leftist background therefore they turn to BS liberal social/economic analysis and comparisons to the "normal" western cultural habits as if ours is inherently better. In that case yes it falls flat.
But any Marxist can easily point out it is quite hard to have sex when the corporate culture encourages practices like "not leaving before the boss" or staying as late as possible despite the lack of actual work. These are all blatant issues but they're of course capitalist issues where instead a lib will point to it just being an "Asian culture" problem.
There are of course very valid criticisms of Japan. It's just that most ignorant Westoids tend to parrot orientalist bullshit most of the time.
The only thing an italian man will fuck is himself, bada bing badaboom,
I will make 1 or 2 exceptions for the "muh birthrates" crowd, because I just listened to an absolutely heartbreaking interview with a school teacher in rural occupied korea who was lamenting that his school had been built in the 1960s and had rooms for 70-odd students per year, and his latest class had a total of 5 children in it, because cuck-Korea has had a total collapse in the amount of children that people are having. Obviously the proposed solution was not going to work, since Korea has banned all talk of improving society, but the story was still heartbreaking.
Honestly, not having children kind of owns in a way, theres no way capitalism can compete with people completely giving up on it and life. It's just proving Marx right.
Wife and I have a great time not having kids. As a result, we're the "fun" ones in the family who haven't been completely broken by home life.
That reminded me of a really odd 8th grade social studies moment. I'm Canadian and the teacher was talking about our low birth rates leading to an aging population, and he concluded that we should try to take in more immigrants to make up for the gap. Dude was a passionate lib that said 'democracy' in italics with a hand gesture (even funnier cause it was in French and he's Acadian descent, if you know the accent and speak French you'll know, if not I can't really get you there in text). We did a mock election on the day Harper got in, communists got 10% of the votes cause 3 of us voted for them.
My class (5th grade social studies) did the same thing when Harper was elected, except the cons won in a landslide since our teacher was an extreme right wing borderline libertarian guy who taught the class "conservatism is when you keep all the money you make, and liberalism is when you give it to the government in taxes, and the more taxes you pay the more liberal it gets". I'll admit I fell for that completely wrong explanation (in my defense I was 12) and "voted" conservative, but thank god I got my shit sorted out throughout highschool and into university
Cons can't even get a riding around here. Until you're out if the city, then it's all theirs
People seem to be fine with hating Chinese and Indians where I live
When I found out Australians call telephone Chinese whispers I was surprised to find an instance of another country being even more casually racist than us
what do you call the thing where you twist the skin on someone's forearm
Oh I didn't say they were more casually racist then us, just that one instance. But point taken
no it wasn't necessarily rhetorical, aus calls it the 'chinese' burn
Ahh. Its 'indian' burn here. About equivalently shitty, I guess. What do you call it when you 'rig' up something to work in a temporary and haphazard way?
jerry rig? Or bodge, kludge, but mostly jerry rig
Jerrys the nicer way we do it. The other involves our favorite racial slur
Weird I haven't heard a racial slur used for that (other than Jerry technically lmao)
Wait is Jerry a slur? I thought it was named after those gas tanks because they are used in lots of diy shit
Yeah it's short for German and used by soldiers in the world wars, in the same way they would eventually call Vietnamese people Charlie. The gas tanks were called Jerry cans because they were made by the German army, and were often taken and used by allied forces because the design is really good- 3 handles for easier 2 person carry, indents for structural integrity that made them lightweight, and a couple other features.
Ah thanks for the info, but I think we should probably find a meaner slur to use for Germans, this one seems a bit tame
I’ll forever remember how bewildered I was when I was high as balls at 2am in an online certification course and the white South African instructor pivoted from his previous 3 hours of verbatim reading his slideshow to ranting for 15 minutes about the superiority of the Jerry can. The next day of class he played a youtube video about the Jerry can that he couldn’t find the day before.
His name was Reginald and he looked like Nigel Thorneberry, clothes too, but he relentlessly mocked me for being the only American in the class so he’s alright I guess
in the US south I have heard people unironically say N-word rig. for that. Without blinking or it even occurring to them that it's fucked up to say. Like second nature. Not even thinking about what the word means.
I’ve lived in the US south most of my life and I’ve never heard that oneLast time I heard I desperately wanted to knock the man's teeth out, but that would have landed me in jail or worse.
When I found out Australians call telephone Chinese whispers I was surprised to find an instance of another country being even more casually racist than us
Don't worry,
is there tooThey call it "arab telephone"
It used to be called Chinese Telephone in North America. I was a kid during the transition.
Straya (is also an example of a racist/chauvinist thing that is normalised)
And those same people are expected to hate on themselves because if you can't take the piss out of yourself (and by extension let others recycle that 'humour') then you're 'up yourself'.
Aussies/Anglos: "Hahahah why don't you go eat dog you chng chng"
Chinese person: "Eh, it'd still taste better than your food."
Aussies/Anglos: "Wow, that's uncalled for. That was just banter but this is just racist. How dare you?"
Anglos "Hey we hated on the Italians, then the Greeks, then the Lebanese, then the Vietnamese, then the Japanese, then the Indians, now the Chinese, now we pretend we're okay with the others so it's your turn just shut up and take it.
Chinese people "Actually I won't let you. Fuck daishuguo"
Anglos: "this is offensive to me and the removed, removed and removeds"
Australia's "happy go lucky" "banter friendly" attitude is extremely selective.
I thought Straya was just Australia with some syllables removed. I don't know the context that makes it racist.
Dirt Owl and I live in Australia, and it is very white racist and anti-communist. Every time there's a liberatory revolution, all the capos come here (well, a lot of them).
They're saying Australia is racist, not that the term "straya", short for Australia, is racist.
This one gets me mad, but just the base assumption that our Asian comrades and homies are inherently good at STEM. To this day I still hear people that Asian dudes are good at math as if it were a profession passive bonus in a game. It's just so other-ing to me. It's just kinda one of those racists stereotypes that I wish died away.
Good thing we've got Andrew Yang trying to build a political career around keeping that stereotype alive.
Andrew Yang is a trailblazer breaking tropes because he's actually very stupid
Exactly! It's so slimey, like bro why would you want to play into that? Why make it harder for other people like you so you can get what? Some votes?
It's just plainly racist and gross, and I think it's uniquely gross towards Asian men as if they don't already have enough weirdo racist tropes they have to deal with. I say this is a black man, i feel for them
The police.
More specific answer, the very obvious racial stratification of any urban region in the US. How different demographics look from neighborhood to neighborhood and the clear relation to worse housing, education, everything really. But it seems very normalized.
Acting like the US is the only country with diversity and treating every other nationality in North America that isn't Canada like a race.
Some people realize that the US is very big and lots of people immigrated to it, so of course it's a very diverse place but can't apply the same logic to China, Russia, India or Brazil.
to be fair, our education system teaches that everyone emigrated from those places; however, the one i can't understand or be fair about is canada.
I always thought it was strange how widely accepted a statement like "I don't date [Race]" is. Like yeah, I get it, people have preferences and shit but you'd never hear anyone say something like "I don't want to be friends with [Race]" because that's unacceptably racist.
The funniest version of this is the white guy who defends pursuing only Asian women as a preference but complains that it's racist when they refuse to date him.
I've known more than one of these.
On the flip side there are lots of Asian and Asian American women with internalized racism that refuse to date Asian guys and themselves have white fever (to mirror the yellow fever that many white guys have). It's just fucked all around.
I've been out of the dating game for a few years now, but when I was on dating sites and tinder, there were waaaaay too many Asian/Indian women with "No Asians, No Indians" right in the profile.
Hope it's better now.
I mean my room mate is Desi, and she very much avoids dating men specifically of her cultural background owing to the traditional cultural views on proper womanhood, feminism, and queerness. I'm sure if a super progressive guy of her culture came around she'd consider dating him, but I don't fault her for having a heuristic to avoid ending up in another abusive relationship.
On the one hand, I'm not in a place where I can question the lived experience of your roommate. On the other hand, a sexist-racist heuristic is still sexist and/or racist.
If I, as a Chinese dude, stated publicly that I don't want to date Chinese women because they're hyper materialistic and status seeking (not a belief I hold irl), I would hope that people would speak up and tell me that that's a fucked up thing to say.
Or, to remove the gender and patriarchy angle from it, if I got mugged a few times by people of a certain racial group, it would still be really fucked up of me to claim that I have a heuristic where I avoid people of that race.
Speaking specifically to your last example, I don't think that's quite the same, as it would imply mugging is held up as an ideal social standard to adhere to in that certain racial group, which is doubtlessly untrue. In her particular case, there are social standards of manhood and a woman's proper place that her ethnoreligious group promulgates, and she's very clear she wouldn't date anyone that adheres to those views, much like she wouldn't date a republican for the very same reason. That's going to, in effect, result in her not being willing to date a large portion of that group.
Like would it be racists or discriminatory (with all of negative connotation entailed) for an ex-Amish person to not want to deal with dating other people of Amish background?
I've seen people like her of almost every ethnicity/race (Hispanic, Indian, East Asian, Black, Middle Eastern, White). Them saying "men of my ethnicity are so misogynist, men of X ethnicity are so much less misogynist" is usually just an excuse to avoid confronting the fact that they're self-hating, since I can find someone exactly like them of X ethnicity who says the same thing.
I don't find that explanation particularly compelling, not in the general, negative way "self-hating" is typically applied, otherwise I qualify as a self-hating white person for having a strong disaffinity for capitalism and Weberian protestant work ethic.
she's very clear she wouldn't date anyone that adheres to those views, much like she wouldn't date a republican for the very same reason. That's going to, in effect, result in her not being willing to date a large portion of that group.
Yeah, that's a very different thing from not dating anyone from a certain ethnic group based on their ethnicity. As long as the criteria is the individual's beliefs (which they can change) and not their place of origin or background (which they cannot) then she's not unfairly discriminating imo.
That's why she dates men from the culture that invented lobotomies specifically for their wives ofc.
Sounds like the straight equivalent of "no blacks, no fats, no fems". Came to call those 'three no's queers'; I threw out dating apps after more than half my locality where I used to live had that at the TOP of their profiles.
As someone born on the "wrong side" of
I'm glad I have never set foot in the west (and never will). Yeah west-worshipping nonwestern libs exist but I've personally never met one and most people in my community are comfortable in their own skin. I can't imagine what it's like to be a minority in the west.I grew up in an area that was like a third to half Asian or so.
TV shows and the internet kept referencing this stereotype that "Asian people are shy"
I was always like, shy?? What the fuck are they talking about? Some of the least shy people I know.
Then I moved to a majority white area and I was like oh, oh yeah Asians actually are often literally shy here because they're alienated by white people being fucking weird and racist assholes
It's not limited to racial hierarchies and fetishes, either. There are many videos upholding other unjust hierarchies as well, like landlords, cops, business owners, etc.
This is pretty insignificant, but it fucking drives me nuts. Whenever a couple goes somewhere and takes the woman's car, the man drives. It's like some silly power dynamic that is built into all M/F relationships in the US.
Me in my hetero cis relationship where my strong beautiful girlfriend drives everytime.
Holy shit how defensive my mother's husband was over his NEED to ALWAYS be the driver, ESPECIALLY in his big truck, even as a child it confused me.
being driven around is gay unless you pay for it then it's alpha because control fetish
Coming out has made me realize there are so many little weird rituals and dynamics in straight relationships that just go totally unnoticed. Queer relationships are such a breath of fresh air
I usually drive around town because my wife is often high as shit, but she usually drives on road trips because we get there several hours earlier.
I prefer to be a passenger prince. I love looking out the window and making an airfoil with my hand.
Lol this happens often with me but my partner & I both hate driving so it's an act of service more than anything.
Would really appreciate it if somebody would convince my girlfriend to help defeat gender norms by letting me be passenger sometime.
100% opposite in my relationship. Wife hates other people driving. I love having a chauffer.
My wife hates being a passenger and I basically only drive if she has a migraine or isn't present. I don't know why someone would have a hangup about it, it's nice.
It's the little things like this that make me so thankful I got the parents I have. They've always split driving 50/50, or at least close enough that it never crossed my mind growing up that driving was the man's duty or whatever weird power trip some guys make it.
Edit: also along the same lines, whenever you see a (outwardly hetero) couple on a tandem bike it's almost always the man out in front with the woman staring at his back
My parents were divorced and both never dated or re-married, they sorta accomplished the same thing!
Out of my parents my dad is EASILY the worse driver, he doesn’t even put his seatbelt on half the time
My mom's (italian-american) husband is so on this tip. And he has to be the last person to order at a restaurant.
In my experience this is more on a case-by-case basis based on the couple in question. Some people just don't like to drive, and some other people really hate being a passenger while someone else is driving. Often it lines up that it can be win-win.
I’m so happy my girlfriend prefers to drive, being high in the passenger seat is so much better. If I could never be behind the wheel of a car again I’d die happy.
I ask my wife to drive, no matter the car, but she only does it on long road trips. However, on long trips she'll drive more than half just so I drive the bad parts like Chicago or Munising.
I’m sure there are corollaries in other geo-regions.
This is pretty much how it works worldwide. Living in The Empire™ grants you that benefit. "The power of a US passport" is very well known. Every country could use American tourist money. It is absolutely another neo-colonial sort of relationship. I saw a documentary that shows that Jamaicans (or another Caribbean country) have a harder time getting into Jamaica than Americans do.
At a lot of airports (eg Singapore) there is an expedited immigration check for 🇪🇺 / 🇺🇸 .
Quite literally
a true trailblazer
