... can I go out and play, too, Mom?
When I was 9, we moved to Tinker AFB in Oklahoma where we stayed for 3 years. The base housing was assigned by rank so if your dad was a major, you were surrounded by families whose dads were majors. That meant that almost every house on the block had kids your age. It led to massive playtime gatherings in the street. It was awesome. When the mob was outside, you could hear them in your house. It was a siren song and soon everyone was there, running around and having fun.
A few days ago, some nut in Atlanta went into a pair of massage parlors and blew away 6 Asian chicks and 2 white chicks. Caught by the police, he told them he had a sex addiction and said the massage parlors kept drawing him back into his addiction. He said explicitly that the shootings had nothing to do with race, politics or religion.
Ha! What a laugh! Like the guy knew his own motives. We know it was all about race. After all, the shooter was white. White ... white ... white ... supremacist? Yes! That's it! He was a white supremacist!
It took the media, the politicians and the academy no time at all to decry the wild increase in white supremacist attacks on Asians. What fun!
Some idiot right winger wrote a blog post wherein he used DoJ data to show that the increase in anti-Asian crime was dominated by black attackers. What a moron. Data? Really? Who uses data any more? The kids are outside playing in the street! Everyone has put on their Power Rangers costumes and they're pretending to fight white supremacists.
Mom, can I clean my room later? Where is my costume? I wanna go play, too!
This one from the DA in Portland was typical.
Today, @DAMikeSchmidt released the following video statement on the murders of 8 people, including 6 Asian women in Atlanta. Hate will never have a place in our society. We stand with our Asian American Pacific Islander community and mourn the lives lost in Atlanta & elsewhere pic.twitter.com/SBYughFMUU
— Multnomah County DA's Office (@MultCoDA) March 17, 2021
This dude's got his Power Rangers outfit on and is outside already. He's not going to miss any of the fun. Some rando in Atlanta, 2,600 miles away, whacks a few sex workers and he rushes to pose and preen about race.
Hmm. How far are we going to take this? If I ding a Hispanic's car with a shopping cart outside Food 4 Less, will the DA from Oswego County, New York rush to post a very sincere and somber video standing in solidarity with the Hispanic community? "White supremacist assaults on Hispanics' vehicles have grown at an alarming rate ..."
By now, most of the kids have bought Power Ranger communicators and they call each other when a particularly large race-hatred scrum is gathering. When it plays that utterly irritating jingle, they know to stuff their unfinished homework under the mattress so mom can't find it and run outside, telling her that it's all done.
They all made this noise. All of them. Forever. Can you imagine what that was like?
The news media are the communicator devices and when they go off, only the dorky, right-wing kids stay inside, studying for tomorrow's math test, working out the statistical tables of interracial crime. Everyone else is outside having fun, fighting white supremacists.
Caught by the police, he told them he had a sex addiction and said the massage parlors kept drawing him back into his addiction. He said explicitly that the shootings had nothing to do with race, politics or religion.
ReplyDeleteHa! What a laugh! Like the guy knew his own motives. We know it was all about race. After all, the shooter was white. White ... white ... white ... supremacist? Yes! That's it! He was a white supremacist!
Did Asians suddenly become the most populous race in the US? If not, why did he happen to frequent a massage parlor that was majority Asian? could it have been that he was buying into a specific type of Asian stereotype, such as the Lotus Flower?
Most people don't understand their own motives. We can, and have, studied this. Mostly, we react, and then explain our own actions after-the-fact to comport with what we think others want to hear.
Some idiot right winger wrote a blog post wherein he used crime data to show that the increase in anti-Asian crime has been dominated by black attackers.
No link? Well, there are lies, damn lies, and misrepresentations of data. I don't blame you for not wanting to expose the latter.
One Brow -
ReplyDeleteAgain, I know I am wasting my time trying to convince you that you make all the same mistakes others make (or one might argue the exact opposite mistakes), but here goes...
Most people don't understand their own motives. We can, and have, studied this. Mostly, we react, and then explain our own actions after-the-fact to comport with what we think others want to hear.
Anyone who has read and understood "Thinking Fast and Slow" understands this. (Or as I like to say, we are not rational beings, we are rationalizing beings.) I might take argument with the last clause " what we think others want to hear" and argue that it should read "what we think makes sense". But that's a nit and not worth arguing - since the relative degree of correctness of the two depends on the thought processes of other individuals, and which are, therefore, unknowable by us - unless you can claim the ability to read minds - I know I can not.
"Did Asians suddenly become the most populous race in the US? If not, why did he happen to frequent a massage parlor that was majority Asian?"
Are you suggesting that he frequented majority Asian massage parlors because he was racist, and racist against Asians? Sure that's possible, but it is an assumption on your part. It could just as easily indicate that he likes Asian people (or at least Asian women). Indeed maybe that he goes to places with Asian and white masseuses means he's racist against black people. Who knows? I don't, and neither do you.
Then there is your last part wherein you miss KT's point altogether. The statistics (whether they are real or not) make no difference to those claiming he is racist. This is KT's point. The reaction (the *predictable* reaction) that the presumptive cause was that he was racist against Asians was made by people who do not know him, and before they could possibly know whether it was true. (Would I be able to argue that their racism against white people had caused their reaction?) Anyways, KT was pointing out the facts are irrelevant to those leading the calls for his hide (and think what you will, but this is nothing more than some of that 'witch hunt' that KT has pointed out before and you continue to deny).
As long as I'm typing...
A few days ago you claimed that the fact that some young person might find the reference in "And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street" to 'a Chinese man that eats with sticks' funny is "*why* it is racist". Really? Who made you the arbiter of racism? Would you be interested to know that my Daughter-in-law was born of Chinese parents (Full disclosure: Taiwanese from far back before Chiang Kai-shek), was born in and raised in Taiwan, and only moved to the US after college? Would you be surprised to hear that she owns, and has read, said book to her daughters? Would you think that her take on whether such a thing is racist is more salient than yours? What would you say to her when she said "but that is how Chinese men look and dressed. And they do eat with sticks. So do I and so do [granddaughter 1] and [grandaughter 2]. What's the problem?" Of course, as she is a legal immigrant and about to complete her citizenship process (at quite an expense!), and she is furious over the illegal immigrants who demand citizenship (and the liberals who support same and call those who don't support it 'racist'), so I guess you'd say that she is obviously racist and quite possibly a white supremacist.
As you know, I read your responses, no matter how off point I see them to be. Your turn.
Ohioan, Then there is your last part wherein you miss KT's point altogether - that is done with full knowledge. These conversations are not held in good faith and it's why he never addresses the content of the post nor directly replies to any direct questions. It's all about his soapbox, not about the conversation.
ReplyDeleteWould you think that her take on whether such a thing is racist is more salient than yours? - No, it isn't. To him, you, and quite possibly your daughter-in-law, are ignorant infidels. You know nothing of the way racism works. That's why he's here, to instruct us.
This is why I scroll past his comments and don't engage. Tim frequently reprimands me and I respect that. I don't always agree with him, but he always addresses the concept of the post. I have learned a great deal from him as I have from you. I can learn nothing at all from Mr. Brow save that pearls before swine is a real thing. It's not that he doesn't understand what people are trying to say, it's that he's found a tiny opening to insert his evangelization. He clearly feels superior to us and he need not engage with our pathetic ideas.
Whatever. I'm over it.
On a different topic, I really liked this one. There are times when I post from OCD, but I got inspired and worked on this one. Re-reading it, I feel like the humor was scattershot, but I'm pondering a book and can see where the individual ideas could be expanded into larger, funnier things. In some ways, the blog has become my notes for larger projects.
You know those "chicks" you reference were someone's mothers and grandmothers. You'd think you could so a bit of respect for the dead.
ReplyDeleteIf not, why did he happen to frequent a massage parlor that was majority Asian?
ReplyDeleteBecause, you deliberately ignorant racist, most massage parlors are run by "Asians."
A specific group of "Asian".
If you could be bothered to look it up, you might even discover that...gosh... that specific immigrant group known to be highly common in that job were highly common in that job.
But hey! Why pay attention to facts, you have hate to spread.
Super special hint:
ReplyDeleteit's not Chinese.
No link? Well, there are lies, damn lies, and misrepresentations of data
ReplyDeleteWell, you'd know all about that, wouldn't you?
With offering quotes that, when someone finds a link that shows the full comment, demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
Ohioan@Heart,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I know I am wasting my time trying to convince you that you make all the same mistakes others make (or one might argue the exact opposite mistakes), but here goes...
Over the course of my life, I'm been convinced to change my mind things like the existence of God and gun ownership, so I have to assume it's not impossible. Perhaps it's some combination of my stubbornness and the inadequacy of your arguments. Or, based on what you write below, perhaps you don't really understand what I'm saying at all.
Are you suggesting that he frequented majority Asian massage parlors because he was racist, and racist against Asians?
I would use "about", rather than "against". Have you heard terms like "benevolent racism" or "benevolent sexism" before? Racism does not require hate.
As someone who understands and seems to accept the basic premises of Thinking Fast and Slow, I'm sure you can see where it applies to the basic stereotypes we learn growing up as children. I'm old enough to remember when the Forbidden 7 were broadcast on TV. I ate at Sambos. I picked up these images at a very young age, and they stay with me, unbanishable demons. The same applies to everyone else raised in the US.
Then there is your last part wherein you miss KT's point altogether. The statistics (whether they are real or not) make no difference to those claiming he is racist. This is KT's point.
Well, I try to be nice by not pointing out the stupidity of some points, but sometimes niceness is wasted, I guess. You are correct that those claiming the shooter is racist don't care about the statistics, but in reality, they don't care about the level or intent of this particular shooter's racism, either. They are leveraging a major media event to draw attention to a problem they feel is under-covered by the media. When one Asian gets killed or beaten up, there is no national news play, so this is one that they can use. They are drawing attention to what they consider to be a real problem, of which this shooter is just an example.
Would you be interested to know that my Daughter-in-law was born of Chinese parents (Full disclosure: Taiwanese from far back before Chiang Kai-shek), was born in and raised in Taiwan, and only moved to the US after college? Would you be surprised to hear that she owns, and has read, said book to her daughters? Would you think that her take on whether such a thing is racist is more salient than yours? What would you say to her when she said "but that is how Chinese men look and dressed. And they do eat with sticks. So do I and so do [granddaughter 1] and [grandaughter 2]. What's the problem?"
I am curious how far you will go with this. Do tell your daughter-in-law that her eating with sticks is so unusual and weird that it she should be on stage next to a magician and charge for the performances, or join the local parade as "the Chinese woman". She might even agree with that. Let us know.
Of course, as she is a legal immigrant and about to complete her citizenship process (at quite an expense!), and she is furious over the illegal immigrants who demand citizenship (and the liberals who support same and call those who don't support it 'racist'), so I guess you'd say that she is obviously racist and quite possibly a white supremacist.
To0 my understanding, the illegal immigrants who "demand citizenship" are merely demanding the right to go through the same process as your daughter-in-law. Why do you think she is objecting to other people being given the same opportunity she has been given?
As you know, I read your responses, no matter how off point I see them to be. Your turn.
That's very kind of you. As you know, I value your contributions, and I enjoy any exchanges you decide to participate in. Thank you.
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteThese conversations are not held in good faith and it's why he never addresses the content of the post nor directly replies to any direct questions. It's all about his soapbox, not about the conversation.
That would be massive projection on your part. I have my own blog if I ever need a soapbox, and back when I posted regularly, I also had a handful of commentators to exchange ideas with. I don't post there often because I don't need a soapbox.
That's why he's here, to instruct us.
Also to learn, as well.
He clearly feels superior to us and he need not engage with our pathetic ideas.
I have a different experience and engage in things differently, but I don't think your ideas are pathetic. In particular, I've been very clear the respect I have for Ohioan@Heart and the seriousness with which he discusses things. You choose to be more flippant about things, and so I don't see the point in addressing you as seriously.
To be honest, this comment came across as a little whiny. Was that intentional?
Foxie, long time no see! Hope things are going well for you and yours.
ReplyDeleteAlso, don't bag on the Asian sex workers. They were only imitating strong, black women.
"Ask for a car while you ride that **** ... you really ain't never gotta **** him for a thang ... pay my tuition just to kiss me ... Now make it rain if you wanna see some"
Foxfier,
ReplyDeleteA specific group of "Asian".
Asians of various territorial ancestries are being attacked, not just Chinese ancestry. So, the territorial ancestry of the ownership of this parlor, or such parlors generally, doesn't seem to be relevant here from what I know. Perhaps you could depart from form, and explain why you think this is relevant?
But hey! Why pay attention to facts, you have hate to spread.
Whom do you think I hate?
With offering quotes that, when someone finds a link that shows the full comment, demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
If you are young enough and blond enough, you should apply at OANN. You are easily their match in reliability and accuracy. I offered the link, and it supported both what I said and what the other commentator said.
KT-
ReplyDeletebusy with kids, mostly. :D
OneBrow-
gosh, you decide to try to change the subject, and assume your conclusion.
I am...wishing I was shocked.
You must be very use to being able to bluster over people in day to day life, that you've learned such tactics so deeply that you apply them in text.
Fortunately, reality doesn't change to support your false claims.
One Brow -
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of getting you worked up there are two things that I simply must answer...
""As someone who understands and seems to accept the basic premises of "Thinking Fast and Slow", I'm sure you can see where it applies to the basic stereotypes we learn growing up as children. I'm old enough to remember when the Forbidden 7 were broadcast on TV. I ate at Sambos. I picked up these images at a very young age, and they stay with me, unbanishable demons. The same applies to everyone else raised in the US."
I for one did not watch that program or eat at "Sambos", but that is irrelevant as it is off point. I was trying to point out that all the people who leap to calls "for his hide" because he 'committed a hate crime' based on 'racism' at this point are thinking using System 1. You know that automatic decision that leaps to mind and must then be rationalized and defended. Those who think using System 2 would suggest as I did that there might well be some other reason(s) for the crime that do not mean he's racist. They would then suggest that waiting for the full story to be told before making a decision is the rational and prudent thing to do.
"To my understanding, the illegal immigrants who "demand citizenship" are merely demanding the right to go through the same process as your daughter-in-law. Why do you think she is objecting to other people being given the same opportunity she has been given?"
First off I don't have to 'think' why she objects, she has been clear in her explanations of her reasoning. Amazingly it is in perfect agreement with my reason for objecting. Nonetheless, I will not claim that what follows is her statement, it is my interpretation of it (and it is my opinion). Simply put it is this: If they are demanding that they should be allowed to go through the same process she is going through, then I concur. However, this means that they are 'hoist by their own petard'. What they seem to be unable to recognize is that they have already created a significant, serious, and important (and in my mind irreconcilable) difference in the processes that they are following. She came here LEGALLY. They came here ILLEGALLY. Surely you can turn on your System 2 rational thinking and agree that when a person's first act within our borders was to violate our law, then they are not following the process that someone who came here legally is following. Q.E.D.
Foxfier,
ReplyDeleteFortunately, reality doesn't change to support your false claims.
Nor does reality alter that I can, and did, answer your points directly and straightforwardly, while you feel the need to resort to character attacks as the facts slip through your fingers.
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteAlso, don't bag on the Asian sex workers. They were only imitating strong, black women.
"Ask for a car while you ride that **** ... you really ain't never gotta **** him for a thang ... pay my tuition just to kiss me ... Now make it rain if you wanna see some"
Worried they'll steal the sugar daddies you think should be paying attention to white women?
Ohioan@Heart,
ReplyDeleteI for one did not watch that program or eat at "Sambos", ...
You never saw a Bugs Bunny cartoon? That would be unusual. I can easily believe you never ate at that particular restaurant chain. Of course, these were but examples, I could list a dozen more without pausing to think.
So, as a person who understands the impact of fast and slow thinking, do you think all of us, including you and I, are affected or unaffected by this continual stream of images we did, and to a lesser degree still do, receive?
...but that is irrelevant as it is off point. I was trying to point out that all the people who leap to calls "for his hide" because he 'committed a hate crime' based on 'racism' at this point are thinking using System 1. You know that automatic decision that leaps to mind and must then be rationalized and defended. Those who think using System 2 would suggest as I did that there might well be some other reason(s) for the crime that do not mean he's racist. They would then suggest that waiting for the full story to be told before making a decision is the rational and prudent thing to do.
When I said, "You are correct that those claiming the shooter is racist don't care about the statistics, but in reality, they don't care about the level or intent of this particular shooter's racism, either. They are leveraging a major media event to draw attention to a problem they feel is under-covered by the media. When one Asian gets killed or beaten up, there is no national news play, so this is one that they can use", did you see this as somehow not in agreement with this point you are making?
First off I don't have to 'think' why she objects, she has been clear in her explanations of her reasoning. Amazingly it is in perfect agreement with my reason for objecting. Nonetheless, I will not claim that what follows is her statement, it is my interpretation of it (and it is my opinion). Simply put it is this: If they are demanding that they should be allowed to go through the same process she is going through, then I concur. However, this means that they are 'hoist by their own petard'. What they seem to be unable to recognize is that they have already created a significant, serious, and important (and in my mind irreconcilable) difference in the processes that they are following. She came here LEGALLY. They came here ILLEGALLY. Surely you can turn on your System 2 rational thinking and agree that when a person's first act within our borders was to violate our law, then they are not following the process that someone who came here legally is following. Q.E.D.
So, you did not understand that I was referring to these people (many of whom did enter legally, and then over-stayed) wanted a legal means of coming here to do the jobs we have de facto invited them here to do, as well as a path to citizenship?