You really think that if factories were closing down or firing people all over America, people would stop caring if only China were white?
In the UK they complain about Poles. Poles are white. “But they’re Slavs” - so what? They’re way whiter than the Chinese. People would *invent* something to complain about.
Better argument is needed for 2020.
I was trying to ask Google why Japanese prefectures are called prefectures and I accidentally a racism:
I think the hilarity comes partly from the fact that when I stop the question at “Why are ___nese…” before I get to a noun, there is still a broken English nounification of the adjective that can happen if your standards are lax enough. And anywhere that you can ask “Why are Chinese smart?” without getting corrected on your grammar is probably also a place where you won’t get corrected on your racism. You have to be extra smart and well educated and enlightened to realize that everyone is definitely exactly the same everywhere.
Well, like, is it technically incorrect grammar?
In English, we put the plural status as part of the noun, but the Japanese language uses things like counters and the noun 日本人 does not actually specify whether you are referring to one or more Japanese people, as “neko” does not specify the number of cats, and so on. Japanese also doesn’t have an a/an/the attached to the noun.
So, if we adopt either a descriptivist mindset or some sort of cultural prescriptivist mindset, it could be argued that Japanese/Japanese is valid just as ninja/ninja and German/Germans. That also brings up that there is no simple plural form such as “Germans”, and I don’t think anyone anywhere will approve of “Japaneses”. (Wow, “Japaneses” sounds really racist.)
So I guess it’s down to whether the listeners/readers socially approve of it, much like “Brits” is okay, but “Japs” and “Nps” were both part of pretty damned racist WW2 propaganda and are thus permanently prohibited, even though all three are just shortenings of national names.
Anonymous asked:
sinesalvatorem answered:
Leukemia is not actually a good thing, anon. If your blood is over-saturated with white cells then please seek medical assistance.
I just saw an article last week suggesting that using identity politics in the US was a bad plan because the majority can practice identity politics, too, and the definition of “white” has expanded in the past.
I’m pretty hyped. What exciting new races or ethnic groups will be considered “white” in the future? Could Asian-Latin fusion cuisine become the next official white people food? When will they be issued their official White Man™ polo shirts?
I said I’d talk about politics less, but I feel like I do need to get this out of my system.
There’s an idea going around both on my dash, and people I know in person, that the behavior of people on the left is what caused Trump to be elected. Different groups get the blame, whether it is rich white liberals in Silicon Valley, DC, and Hollywood, the campus left, black lives matter, internet SJWs and feminists, mainstream media journalists, late night comedians, or some combination of these, the theory goes that Trump was essentially a white working class middle finger to the condescension, radicalism, and disrespect toward traditional values of members of these various left-wing groups. People who put forward this theory say that to win back Trump voters, the left needs to be kinder, more compassionate, and less radical toward white working class (WWC) culture, values, and way of life. The claim is that if only the left were nicer to WWC people and respected their way of life more, Trump would have never even won a Republican primary, let alone an electoral college majority.
Now, leaving aside whether it would be personally moral and virtuous to be more compassionate and less radical toward the WWC (probably to at least some extent), I want to raise doubts about whether this perspective is actually useful for winning elections and defeating Trumpism.
No doubt many WWC people, and those sympathetic to them, feel condescended to, disrespected, and that their way of life is under attack by the left. There is also no doubt that there have been individuals and groups on the left that have been openly hostile to the WWC way of life, where “white male” is an insult, conservative Christians are publicly degraded and mocked, performative flag-waving nationalism is seen as not just gauche but stupid and hick-ish, and where white rural people are assumed to be personally racist and homophobic.
But, all political movements are going to have their assholes who degrade the other side and openly disrespect them. It’s easy to miss when you largely live in left-wing bubbles online and off, which I imagine is true of most people on my dash, and is certainly true of me, but the right has their own version of this, and it’s popular. There’s a post going around my dash about a condescending line in a Meryl Streep speech, and how this is an example of liberal condescension that created Trump, but I guarantee you that more people listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on the radio every day than saw that Meryl Streep speech. And Limbaugh and Hannity on an almost daily basis disrespect, mock, and condescend to liberal constituencies, values, and ways of life. And guess what, Republicans still won.
People like Limbaugh and Hannity, not to mention Fox News and Breitbart, make their money by inflaming a sense of grievance and resentment of the left among the disproportionately rural, older, religious, and WWC Republican base. These outlets have far more political reach and power than random SJW blogs, the campus left, black lives matter, actors or tech billionaires giving speeches, or even late night comedians.
In the educated liberal bubbles that I and many people in my online and offline circles reside in, the reverse can seem true. It can seem like left-wing culture is omnipresent and the right is completely stifled by blacks lives matter, SJWs, and late night comedians. But in other circles, which comprise nearly half the country, the reverse is true.
In many ways, the left is already on net more compassionate to the WWC than the right is to left-wing constituencies. There were countless articles in left-wing outlets talking to Trump voters in order to understand and sympathize with Trump voters. I don’t think I’ve ever once seen an article in a right-wing outlet that went to Harlem, San Francisco, or Ann Arbor, trying to compassionately understand the motivations and lifestyle of people on the other side from their point of view.
So the idea that the left must hold itself to an even higher standard on compassion and than the right to win elections seems implausible to me (again, leaving aside whether holding ourselves to a higher standard would be more virtuous and moral).
Even if the left was nicer to the WWC, I don’t see that changing vote patterns, or making the WWC feel any less resentful and under attack. Suppose 90% of the left-wing people who are being blamed for the rise of Trumpism became nicer. The Limbaughs and Hannitys and Breitbarts of the world, and the millions who follow them, wouldn’t take a step back and say “you know, maybe the left doesn’t hate me or my way of life”. No. They would continue to cherry pick the worst examples, as they already do, from a smaller set of mean liberals in order to inflame cultural resentment and grievance among their followers, and they would also continue to see things that I think aren’t mean and are true that the left says, like that black people have a rougher relationship with the police than other groups, as offensive and attacking their dignity and way of life.
I’m not saying there’s no way to convince some of these people over to the left. But, pointing the finger at the meaner (and numerically smaller) strains of the left and thinking that if only for them being condescending and disrespectful we would be in a golden age of liberal dominance in politics doesn’t strike me as true or productive.
So I get your frustration, and a lot of what you say is correct. It’s far too tempting to say “Hey leftists-who-disagree-with-me, YOU’RE the reason our enemy won!” without sufficient proof. That’s just opportunism.
And we should treat the WWC (and all of the WC) in this country with compassion, and we should help their material needs, regardless of whether it wins us elections. Trying to come up with political justifications for basic human decency is a bit creepy.
(Plus, not to mention a Far Right resurgence is occurring across the entire developed world. It seems very petty to blame that on a few annoying American liberals. There are deeper trends here.)
I feel you here.
However, there is some countervailing evidence here.
1. If we’re not being condescending to them, we should listen to what our enemies are saying. And in between accusations of corruption and defending the free market, Republican voters seem really, really upset about Political Correctness. Obsessed with it, and explicitly saying they support idiots like Trump just to defy Political Correctness.
You can dismiss what they say and come up with other reasons they voted the way they did (they just want to be racist, or economic anxiety) but then that is being patronizing because you aren’t really listening anymore. If you listen, Political Correctness is a huge deal to them, and teasing out the source of that sounds like a worthwhile endeavor.
2. A lot of this is just projection from some left-of-center allies about the illiberal tactics used by establishment social justice, such as extreme arrogance, dismissiveness, shallow analysis, using institutional power to punish dissenters, and a bunch of other mindkilling, groupthink tactics. Said allies (or, former allies) really hated those tactics, and so rejoice in blaming them for the defeat of the mainstream SJ candidate.
Projection is not a good source of analysis of course, and so they might be wrong that this really caused Trump’s victory. But said establishment really should pay attention to how many enemies it has, even “on its own side.” Their tactics are really ticking off their friends, causing dissension every step away. SJ can try to ignore this dissent and pain as long as they wield the hammer, but don’t be surprised when their enemies leap at any weakness as a chance to earn some rhetorical points.
Social justice has enraged and alienated conservatives, libertarians, moderates, socialists, communists, and artsy anarchists. At some point it will have no friends left except the business-friendly / socially liberal wing of a city-based party.
3. Something happened between 2012 and 2016. There’s some reason Republicans started really getting into unbridled rudeness and race-baiting. You can’t even wholly blame Trump for finally opening the floodgates, he tried in 2012. What the hell happened to make voters so much more racist, or at least racist-tolerant? It’s not like there are a lot more immigrants around or other normal causes of racial strife (let alone to explain the tolerance of crude sexual behavior.)
And to the unaided eye, one of the real changes of the past 4 years was the political visibility of intolerant liberalism. So it’s at least worth considering “the thing that changed in the last 4 years, is somewhat responsible for the rather different outcome this time around.”
Regarding #1: If a 100% black company is okay, but a 100% white company “isn’t diverse enough”, this implies whites are inherently worth less than PoC. If women have equal beneficial capabilities to men, but men are uniquely violent and oppressive, this implies women are better than men.
I think people can feel this even if they don’t consciously realize it.
Also, as one of those alienated types, those tactics you mention make SJ a liability to me in many ways.
I really don’t understand white nationalists who think antebellum slavery was a good idea - even from a self-interest perspective.
Like, you guys do realise how the people you hate so much got to the Americas, right?
For people who say blacks can’t swim, you seem surprisingly convinced that we crossed the Atlantic without help.
The first White Nationalist I’ve met in a while does indeed think that the Atlantic Slave Trade was a bad idea, and roughly for that reason.
From a regular Nationalist perspective racializing slavery was also a dumb idea since it essentially created a separate ethnicity in a group that could have been fully integrated, causing expensive and politically-divisive rifts in society that last to this day, undermined the nation’s moral character, undermined national morale, etc. And that’s before even accounting for the ordinary moral damage it did in terms of unnecessary human suffering, which was enormous.
Of course if one is the kind to practice mass racialized slavery, one may not be the kind to give thought to the long term implications of mass racialized slavery on others in general.
The issue with racism is that it violates the principle of justice as individual. Someone is being made to suffer for something someone else entirely did, united only by surface characteristics. (E.g., being black is not an ideology and does not cause behavior in the absence of a cultural context which makes it ideological/cultural/political.)
So breaking the principle of individual justice to combat racism probably isn’t such a great idea.
However, while race does not intrinsically alter behavior, culture, ideology, and religion do. Some of this is mostly just aesthetics, like architecture or food. But some of it has much deeper consequences, like multigenerational cousin marriage, or “honor” killings.
However, unlike race (currently), culture is fortunately somewhat mutable. There are limits, however, particularly with regard to ideology.
I guess what I’m saying here is that America should limit the number of North Korean refugees it takes after the War, until it can be determined how safe former adherents of Juche coming over in one mass are, but should be willing to take many thousands of refugees from South Korea after Seoul is destroyed. In-kind aid should be delivered instead, and infrastructure reconstruction should proceed with more funding than originally scheduled.
Regarding arguments around race and racism.
I would argue that we haven’t actually tried having social policy that doesn’t suck yet. A combination of factors produced by our society and policies incentivize bad outcomes.
You get the outcome the incentives produce. To change the outcome, one must change the incentives.
- Mic.com/Slate/BuzzHuff, 2025
HoneyBites, the subject of the OP is literally denying people the right to vote based on their race and sex. If you don’t think that would increase resentment, and that resentment increase racism, for whites, but you think doing the same to blacks would increase resentment by blacks, then you don’t think whites are human.
Hell, why don’t we re-enact Sherman’s march and raze the US south, the southern US is full of shitty people with shitty politics. Maybe burn down all Mormon churches and compounds, they got both nasty shit going on and nasty politics.
I get you wanna piss your fuckin pants because it’s those dirty furriners doing those dirty furriner crimes, but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
Things being bad is not a reason to make them worse. (This part of the problem with arguments about alcohol/drugs, too.)
We have no obligation to import these people. We do not have an obligation to import people that will make the country worse. We don’t have an obligation to tolerate criminal acts favored by their cultures, or tear our national social cohesion to shreds to tolerate those acts.
So some fringe groups of Mormons are still polygamists and practice shady things with young brides and that sort of thing. Oh look, Westerners doing a bad thing. Better import enough people that have similar practices so that it becomes normalized and gains political power! That’ll sure improve things! Yay justice!
but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
How much FGM was happening in the US before it was imported? It won’t stop now if immigration is shut off only because we won’t literally kick all those who practice it out of the country.
Kicking out only individuals who are actually convicted of it is the individualist approach. And it makes sense. The preconditions for citizenship included not bringing foreign criminal/terrorist activity to this country. Those preconditions were violated.
In light of that, how does removing citizenship not make sense?
And I don’t really think the problem we have is “We don’t execute criminals grotesquely enough.“ I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that sort of thing anymore. If you wanted to heighten investigation, that could make sense, but public executions don’t really help anyone.
It apparently cost $500,000 to prosecute three guys, and the number of crimes committed is far worse.
However, “diversity” ideology covered up that the crimes were even happening in the first place. Admitting that some cultures practice this bullsht more than others was “racist”. I mean it’s just economics, right? Cultural differences beyond food aren’t real, right?
What is your plan to force assimilation on this issue?
Maybe we don’t have to publicly execute them. Maybe we can just ordinarily execute them and make sure it gets in the news where their buddies we read it.
Maybe I don’t even want to go that far. Maybe I just want to throw the Overton Window far enough to the right that Cultural Antirealism will die and Left/Libs will at least start admitting that there is a problem and we can get a gentler solution that actually works.
I don’t associate myself with anyone who’s fully political because I wasn’t friends with nerds in high school, the fuck makes you think I’ll be friends with the same fuckwits who fantasize about bacon like they got kicked off EpicMealTime and say uncool shit like ‘you tabbernacking sonoffabitch’.
Niggas used to do graffiti, like; I’m too popular for all of you. I’m a social butterfly of charisma, what are you? You’re reblogging drumpf memes and writing Harambe in ballots or getting your shit pushed in by a whiteboy with a bun wearing all black calling you a nazi in your “Praise Kek, born to Deus Vult” apparel which makes no sense anyway, you were born to “god will it”? Nigga that’s blasphemy, uncool
can you please rephrase this in actual english
I don’t associate myself with anyone who’s fully political because I wasn’t friends with nerds in high school,
Full Politicals are all nerds (or were in high school). I don’t associate with them because they are lame.
the fuck makes you think I’ll be friends with the same fuckwits who fantasize about bacon like they got kicked off EpicMealTime
Full Politicals are fat.
and say uncool shit like ‘you tabbernacking sonoffabitch’.
Tabbernack is a Quebecois curse word, from tabernacle, a religious term. Only an uncool person would say it, trying to avoid ordinary regular curse words.
Niggas used to do graffiti, like; I’m too popular for all of you.
OP was popular in high school and participated in activities that require high social status, including violating the law.
I’m a social butterfly of charisma, what are you? You’re reblogging drumpf memes and writing Harambe in ballots
Full Politicals engage in lame, low-status, dork behavior like reblogging low-quality (anti-?)Trump memes.
or getting your shit pushed in by a whiteboy with a bun wearing all black calling you a nazi in your “Praise Kek, born to Deus Vult” apparel
When Full Politicals aren’t posting lame memes, they get beat up by manbun Antifas while wearing lame meme apparel.
which makes no sense anyway, you were born to “god will it”? Nigga that’s blasphemy, uncool
Also, Kek is an Egyptian deity, so putting “Praise Kek” on shirt about reviving the Crusades is blasphemous.
