|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who.
Challenging someone’s right to their America heritage based on the fact that they are half Asian/black/Indian/whatever is either racist or bigoted. I get that it may not directly translate to EU cultures, but it is racist here in the US.
Seriously, US TL members spend a lot of time in this thread explaining US race relations to people who are not from this country and do not live here. I would never dream of telling someone from Japan was is or isn’t offensive in their culture, so I don’t know why every non-American feels comfortable presenting their hot take on US race relations with such confidence.
edit: The statement is out of line, but it is also a common tactic used by racists in the US.
|
On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Isn't there some more nuanced word we can use? Including this with true racism under one umbrella term just feels wrong to me :/ I 100% agree that his statement is completely out of line.
The word 'tasteless' is synonymous to racist in its modern usage. Be wise and accept the change. Mourn the loss of a strong word that, in the past, should prompt outrage. We even have a TeamLiquid thread racist for such acts as calling rioters scum.
|
The video comes off to me as "You're Asian so no one in your family could have possibly been involved in the American Revolution". Which certainly involves making judgements based on race. I guess what terminology you want to use is up for debate, I'd classify it as being racist. Though I get where people are coming from with the watering down of the term. Racism being on a bell curve means there's a whole lot of stuff that falls under the umbrella. Its a wide spectrum where card carrying skinhead/klansman/nazi/"racial realist" is at the extreme end but it covers a billion other things. Things get messy because there's a lot of stuff that is racist but also the word is very loaded so people get mega defensive if you use the term.
|
On October 28 2016 23:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Challenging someone’s right to their America heritage based on the fact that they are half Asian/black/Indian/whatever is either racist or bigoted. I get that it may not directly translate to EU cultures, but it is racist here in the US. Seriously, US TL members spend a lot of time in this thread explaining US race relations to people who are not from this country and do not live here. I would never dream of telling someone from Japan was is or isn’t offensive in their culture, so I don’t know why every non-American feels comfortable presenting their hot take on US race relations with such confidence. edit: The statement is out of line, but it is also a common tactic used by racists in the US.
Quoting this so I'll be able to find it again for next time you post in the EU politics thread. Or voice your opinion on a game you haven't played.
|
On October 28 2016 20:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:
you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance So basically just like affirmative action. Which is apparently not racist according to dems.
The problem wth race in the US is that racism is so important, so structural, both in common interactions and in institutions, that being color blind is almost impossible. Yes, affirmative action (what we call positive discrimination) is racist in a sense, sometime counter productive, and even anti racist movements are racists, but they are forced to by the state of affair : they are only acknowledging what structure the society and try to lessen inequalities.
What is more problematic to me is when those anti racist movements are imported in other contexts, like Dan HH said in a previous post, where racism is not as structural, and where anti racist rhetoric can, in fact, fuel racism rather than prevent it.
|
United States41984 Posts
She was talking about her American heritage and he erroneously called her out on that because she looks Asian and therefore cannot have an American heritage.
It's not too confusing.
|
he did know it was thailand though and not "asia"
|
On October 28 2016 22:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2016 21:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Cherry picking polls? You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set. Mate, look, there are people whose job it is to aggregate polls. You want to not cherry pick national polls, you look at that : http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/This is good data... ... and that gives you +5,6 in favour of Clinton. Now if the purpose of the thread is to convince each other on how to interpret data because you REALLY want Trump to be closer than he is and I REALLY want Clinton to be certain of winning, you'll do it without me. But again, if what we want to are fact to establish a solid basis for a conversation or a debate, you look at professional poll aggregator because everything else is basically meaningless. The left-leaning Washington Post even commented on it. Show nested quote +Donald Trump has gained on Hillary Clinton during the past week, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, solidifying support among core Republican groups as well as political independents.
Roughly 6 in 10 still expect Clinton to prevail, while the poll finds shrinking concerns about the accuracy of the vote count and voter fraud in the election.
Clinton holds a slight 48-44 percent edge over Trump among likely voters, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 1 percent in the survey completed Sunday through Wednesday. Clinton held a six-point edge in the previous wave and a 12-point edge in the first wave of the tracking poll by ABC News Sunday (50 percent Clinton vs. 38 percent Trump). In a two-candidate contest, Clinton holds a five-point edge over Trump, 50 to 45 percent.
Trump’s growth in support from 38 percent to 44 percent is fueled by shored-up support among Republican-leaning voting groups as well as a significant boost among political independents. Trump has made up ground among whites, particularly those without college degrees and women. Trump now leads by a 30 percentage point margin among white voters without college degrees, up from 20 points from this weekend. White women now tilt toward Trump by 48 to 43 percent after leaning 49 to 43 percent in Clinton’s favor before. Just because your gal has a small spot of bad news doesn't mean it's automatically Trump doing his polls-are-wrong schtick again. Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:06 Laurens wrote:
Can someone post what the Kirk dude said? I can't understand the video. Something something George Washington. Apparently this is it: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” How is that racist? He's obviously alleging asians can't be patriotic as a matter of racial incapability. She bled for this nation, families like hers are obviously better equipped to know what it means to bleed and die, and how dare you imply otherwise, racist. I'm sure all the people saying their white skin was the reason they were acquitted will publicly repent of their implicit racism and fault prosecutors for declining to inform the defense of the informant.
Except that the Washington Post relies on its own poll, which is one in a very big pool that one has to consider.
Look guys, the rice has tightened, nobody debates that:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/
... but screaming "OMG only one point difference!!!" because of one or two polls while ignoring other that give Clinton +12 makes no sense.
I don't know what we are arguing about. I suggest we stick with 538, or any really good quality aggregator when we discuss polls, because the Washington Post or any other source that relies on their own poll only will only lead in cherry picking vs cherry picking.
Unless of course the idea is to convince yourself while ignoring the whole picture, but that's not very interesting.
So, objectively and with no partisan bias : the race has tightened a bit, the best aggregator gives Clinton somewhere between +5,5 and +6 and a 81% of winning the whole thing. Other aggregator give Clinton better chances but are probably not reliable. Single polls say a lot of things and matter little.
Is that something we can agree on?
|
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true.
|
It is stupid anyway : if you are born in the US and had your education in the US, then you can rightfully talk about your american heritage, even if you're not white, or even if you have no biological link to any american forefathers.
|
On October 28 2016 23:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:
you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance So basically just like affirmative action. Which is apparently not racist according to dems. The problem wth race in the US is that racism is so important, so structural, both in common interactions and in institutions, that being color blind is almost impossible. Yes, affirmative action (what we call positive discrimination) is racist in a sense, sometime counter productive, and even anti racist movements are racists, but they are forced to by the state of affair : they are only acknowledging what structure the society and try to lessen inequalities. What is more problematic to me is when those anti racist movements are imported in other contexts, like Dan HH said in a previous post, where racism is not as structural, and where anti racist rhetoric can, in fact, fuel racism rather than prevent it.
Both Dan HH's post and this one should be required reading on the topic of international connotations of racism.
|
On October 28 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 22:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:42 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:39 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:37 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:33 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2016 20:31 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:27 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:
[quote]
Apparently this is it:
“I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,”
How is that racist? Because she said she was a daughter of the America Revolution(directly decedent from someone who fought in the American Revolution) and he question that because of her Taiwanese decent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_DuckworthTammy Duckworth was born in Bangkok, Thailand, to Franklin and Lamai Duckworth. Her American father, who died in 2005,[3] was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who traced his family's American roots to before the Revolutionary War. Her Thai mother is of Chinese ancestry.[4] Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_RevolutionLike this shit is racist. He directly challenged her being a Daughter of the American Revolution because she is Asian. I get folks are from the EU, but can you use google and like the slightest amount of critical thinking? There are tons of news articles that will very clearly explain this to you. Where do you infer that from? Why is it not "because she is not from American descent"? If he had stated: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Belgium to serve George Washington,”, would you still find this racist? Do you think a person of typical European descent would have had their lineage questioned in the same way? Like I said in my edit, it's you guys who are turning this into racism now. If she was from Germany or whichever other "typical European" country he'd question her lineage just the same, yes. Well I will say that your understanding of US culture is pretty limited if you believe that. Alright, so if you look Asian, and you tell me "I was born in Thailand", and from this information I assume that both of your parents are Thai, that assumption makes me a racist? Lmao ok, TIL. If I say my father fought in WW2 for the US and you say "How, did people form Thailand fly over to fight for the US in WW2?", then yes, you are racist. You're not evil, but you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance, which is classic racism. Yeah why do people assume only white people fought for the nazis? many black africans did as well. Yes, and many leaders in the Arab world supported Hitlers treatment of the Jews. Mostly this is not talked about these days.
What's your point?
Lots of people everywhere, from Asia to South America and including the US supported Hitler.
And at the time Arabs and Jews were already in a conflict over Palestine.
I think the fact that the great mufti of Jerusalem for example supported Hitler is extremely well known and not talked about less than the fact that Mexico banned The Great Dictator because it was "offensive to a foreign leader".
|
On October 28 2016 23:43 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 23:17 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Challenging someone’s right to their America heritage based on the fact that they are half Asian/black/Indian/whatever is either racist or bigoted. I get that it may not directly translate to EU cultures, but it is racist here in the US. Seriously, US TL members spend a lot of time in this thread explaining US race relations to people who are not from this country and do not live here. I would never dream of telling someone from Japan was is or isn’t offensive in their culture, so I don’t know why every non-American feels comfortable presenting their hot take on US race relations with such confidence. edit: The statement is out of line, but it is also a common tactic used by racists in the US. Quoting this so I'll be able to find it again for next time you post in the EU politics thread. Or voice your opinion on a game you haven't played.
Feel free. I will freely admit my ignorance of many cultures and their norms. And I’ll take being corrected when I charge in claiming I understanding things that I really don’t. I don’t like admitting I am wrong, but I’ll take it over being confidently ignorant.
I guess you could use it for games too, but video games =/= cultures of entire nations.
|
On October 29 2016 00:00 IgnE wrote:
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true.
Nate Silver at least doesn't agree on the first point. The race is not over. 18% chances is not great, but it's far from 0%.
|
On October 29 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:00 IgnE wrote:
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true. Nate Silver at least doesn't agree on the first point. The race is not over. 18% chances is not great, but it's far from 0%.
Because its never 0. not even on November 9th.
|
On October 29 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:00 IgnE wrote:
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true. Nate Silver at least doesn't agree on the first point. The race is not over. 18% chances is not great, but it's far from 0%.
I think of it like this: Trump's chance of winning is higher than that of rolling a 6. I've rolled a 6 plenty of times. It happens. This idea that a low chance means something doesn't happen defies what probability even means.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 29 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:00 IgnE wrote:
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true. Nate Silver at least doesn't agree on the first point. The race is not over. 18% chances is not great, but it's far from 0%.
Although in this context, given that it's a one-time event, 18% just means a degree of belief (based on the 538 model) rather than a chance in the more commonly thought-of definition of probability (e.g. that Trump would win 18 out of 100 times). A technical difference, but an important one.
|
On October 29 2016 00:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2016 00:00 IgnE wrote:
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true. Nate Silver at least doesn't agree on the first point. The race is not over. 18% chances is not great, but it's far from 0%. Although in this context, given that it's a one-time event, 18% just means a degree of belief (based on the 538 model) rather than a chance in the more commonly thought-of definition of probability (e.g. that Trump would win 18 out of 100 times). A technical difference, but an important one.
I think 18% by 538 is the estimate of their 10 000 simulation of the race, based on the statistical degree of uncertainty of the polls.
I don't think it's a degree of belief, but then again, I'm not a statistician. Maybe someone knows better how to interpret the whole thing?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 28 2016 23:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Challenging someone’s right to their America heritage based on the fact that they are half Asian/black/Indian/whatever is either racist or bigoted. I get that it may not directly translate to EU cultures, but it is racist here in the US. Seriously, US TL members spend a lot of time in this thread explaining US race relations to people who are not from this country and do not live here. I would never dream of telling someone from Japan was is or isn’t offensive in their culture, so I don’t know why every non-American feels comfortable presenting their hot take on US race relations with such confidence. edit: The statement is out of line, but it is also a common tactic used by racists in the US.
I know this is kinda cheap, so I'll try to pre-empt any outrage by saying that at the end of this post I defer to your better knowledge! 
But first:
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I just don't see how this qualifies...?
MAYBE under this definition??
noun
1.
the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2.
abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
I get what you are saying, and I see your point about using it as a way of making her somehow less American (seems like an absolutely insane thing to try to do to someone who lost 2 legs fighting for said country.... but idiots will be idiots I guess).
It really sounded like an ill-advised and incredibly tasteless joke to me to score cheap points, but honestly you have a point in that I'm not American so I will not argue any more on this topic.
On October 28 2016 23:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Isn't there some more nuanced word we can use? Including this with true racism under one umbrella term just feels wrong to me :/ I 100% agree that his statement is completely out of line. The word 'tasteless' is synonymous to racist in its modern usage. Be wise and accept the change. Mourn the loss of a strong word that, in the past, should prompt outrage. We even have a TeamLiquid thread racist for such acts as calling rioters scum.
It just really bothers me when acts get lumped together under one term, where on the one end of the spectrum I might just barely get mad were I exposed to it, while on the other I'd literally kill someone for doing it to me. It feels like the word loses its usefulness at that point (not specifically talking about racism here but I think there's a few words that have had this happen to them).
I wish there was more nuance... Even allowing for what Plansix said being true (and I think that's a fairly strong argument actually, belittling her American heritage), saying this man is a racist and then looking at some other people that fall into this category...
Anyway, arguing about what is and isn't racist with Americans I feel is very difficult because it gets very heated (I don't mean any offence here, I understand that it's a much more relevant term there than in the more homogeneous places I've lived all my life, i.e Sweden and Korea), and Plansix is right in saying that I don't have much of a leg to stand on given that I'm not from there or from anywhere else where it's an issue (you could argue that Sweden is experiencing some racial tensions now but I haven't lived there in 6 years and I don't have a good idea of what's actually happening back home, only that things feel a lot more tense than they did when I was a kid...).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it depends on the audience really. you have to look at who you are talking to and whether talking about critical race theory etc will get anywhere. people who view talking about racism everywhere as an expressive, moral crusade are basically in the protester mentality, no consideration for receptivity etc.
but on balance i think the blind rage type of activists are still irreplaceable. you can't exactly get rid of them, and historically they've been useful in pushing through various results. it's just not very controlled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
