normal brain: oh another Hellboy movie
glowy brain: bad, they cast a white guy to play an Asian role
space brain: good, they cast an Asian guy to play the Asian role
galaxy brain: bad, the actor is Korean but the character is Japanese
universe buddha brain: Asian-American is a separate race from both
“Of course, aside from the East Asians and South Asians, there are the American Asians, also known as Unionese,”
(Sorry, sorry, this is just my single favorite race hot take of the past month.)
East Asian people shamelessly adopting/stealing (a debate to be had there) black American music is a huge growth industry right now. The Teriyaki Boyz were way ahead of their time.
Ironically you could argue that they’ve also appropriated the act of appropriating black culture, because that’s a foundation of white American culture
Do you believe in cultural intellectual property rights, or not?
That’s the real question posed.
rocketverliden asked:
Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on. Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on. U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.
They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.
The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy. (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)
History is big. There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize. There are many people, with many stories. With this, we could step sideways.
(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay. After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)
However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity. I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.
It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either. It doesn’t like the United States of America.
It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding. But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.
hmm arguing with a straight face that racism against white people is bad because it’s a slippery slope that can lead to racism against non-white people
…I
OK separately I think racism against white people is bad because it is racism.
But also I actually think that yes, unironically this? If you officially start designating races and you treat them differently (e.g.: Affirmative action), people will follow suit by thinking of them differently.
Isn’t this just what @mitigatedchaos argues all the time, that all racism is empowered and normalized by all other racism? (And the generalized version of this for the left’s hypocrisies.)
Death to the Imperialists, long live the Empire.
I forget who it was that said that Chelsea Manning was going to get eaten alive by the Left for being too pure and good for this world, and uh…. you called it.
I wouldn’t call this being eaten alive.
Yet.
hmm arguing with a straight face that racism against white people is bad because it’s a slippery slope that can lead to racism against non-white people
…I
OK separately I think racism against white people is bad because it is racism.
But also I actually think that yes, unironically this? If you officially start designating races and you treat them differently (e.g.: Affirmative action), people will follow suit by thinking of them differently.
Isn’t this just what @mitigatedchaos argues all the time, that all racism is empowered and normalized by all other racism? (And the generalized version of this for the left’s hypocrisies.)
More seriously, while being racist towards white people is bad on its own merits, either as a violation of justice - judging someone for the actions of another - or on more Utilitarian grounds, most of the people that are seriously racist against the whities aren’t going to accept those arguments.
Thus the appeal to something they might actually care about.
It’s possible to create political will out of thin air, but a lot of the time it’s in reaction to historical or material factors, and political will with those factors will have deeper roots.
It’s important to realize along with this, that most politics will occur around the margins - whether groups of white supremacists are growing or shrinking, whether swing voters shift from one party to another, and so on. Strong believers do have an effect, but it’s necessary to have raw power mass at your disposal.
As such, the question is not about “but if we be nice to our rivals, they will still be maximally evil,” but about “what’s the marginal rate that people will enter or leave our enemy’s coalition?”
Now that doesn’t mean playing along nicely all the time, but for goodness sake people should be very careful and specific in who they are targetting, and most racism is really bad at doing that.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
luckily policy success or failure has no relation to politics anyway
This will sound weird, but a lot of Trumpers don’t actually care about the wall, per se.
The Trump administration is looking to reduce and change legal immigration, in some ways making it more like it has been previously or like other countries. (Immigration levels have not always been this high in America.)
This makes a lot of sense from a “keep Republicans able to get elected over the next five decades” perspective, as, as we all know, Republican outreach to other minority races has mostly flopped. Also, views change the more generations that immigrants are in the country. (I talk about them flipping the Asians, but it’s a bit harder than flipping the Irish since there is a greater visual difference with whites, and so there are limits to how far racism will dissolve.)
The Democrats were celebrating an inevitable demographic tide that would deliver them permanent electoral majority. However, that tide is not actually inevitable. On some level, Trumpers can probably sense that the plan is to replace or outnumber them, but America does have immigration as part of its national mythos so this is not as well-supported.
The Wall is, to a degree, just a hammy metaphor for actually enforcing immigration law, and to a lesser degree, changing immigration rules. If he changes immigration / enforces immigration law in other ways, his voters will be satisfied even without him actually building it.
Speaking of independent prosecution agencies for police misconduct, we should have those. Can’t have the prosecutors that depend on the cops for all their other prosecutions, bad cops could retaliate to cover for their buddy by refusing to cooperate with later prosecutions. Otherwise at least try it in another jurisdiction.
I want to shitpost that Social Justice is White Supremacy.
Because under badly-done Social Justice, we see a pattern where only white males have agency, only white males have power, only white males are capable of action that actually does anything and can cause harm, and their resources are effectively unlimited. Under that same framework, the world is divided into whites and everyone else, and the whites enacted truly stunning and powerful violence on an unimaginable scale that no one else could. Their dominance is so overwhelming that any minorities disagreeing with SJ have “internalized male opinions” or white opinions, like some kind of mind control, and are incapable of deciding their beliefs for themselves. And the white supremacy must be actively held down, or it will inevitably seize control of the world.
But of course, it isn’t really the case that even badly-done SJ is truly white supremacist…
“[Ghost in the Shell] is a perfect overlapping of form and function. They speak directly to the audience and say “the patriarchal corporation made Motoko white because they consider it more marketable.”
The irony of the film is that people [online] have bought entirely into the corporate logic and are now arguing that ‘authentic’ Japanese identity is superior because it’s even more marketable - literally that the movie would have made more money with an authentic Japanese on the posters.
In this view, Cutter was bad not because he was using billions of tax dollars to vicisect people for profit, but because he failed to make enough profit for his shareholders. He was not exploitative enough - he did not ‘Think Different". Cutter’s sneering racism is unfashionable, and so his Caucasian deathbots were left in the dust by the burgeoning Japanese-Looking Fucktoy industry.”
An interesting response, though I believe the arguers actually wanted it for authenticity/racial representation reasons and only made the argument about money because they thought “be more moral (according to our morality)” wouldn’t be convincing.
Actually, it occurs to me…
Without that Irish and Italian immigration, would there be a generic “white” identity in America?
