What's on your mind?

Users who are viewing this thread

For example, I watched this big budget Chinese movie with my friend some weeks back and it had these themes of the humble Chinese man standing up to the taller, mean American.

Chinese films and TV do sometimes give off this impression, but it's not how ordinary people, or the education system, or even the state perceive themselves or their history. In America (and a lot of Europe), people's sense of national identity is fleshed out primarily from mass media and education. This isn't the case in China (and in the lot of the non-liberal-democratic world). China has been a mostly unified state for millennia, and the Han ethnic group is more like an ancient form of civic nationalism containing a bunch of other ethnic groups. The idea of Chinese supremacy is passed down from the grass roots.
China no 1. Everyone in every village knows this, it's not a national myth to them, it's just inherently, non-falsifiably true. China is da best. 1839-1949 was just a temporary embarrassment in a long list of insanely powerful empires that quite literally dominated the world.


Interestingly enough the state has been trying to crack down on jingoistic WW2 drama films like this which it mainly views as ahistorical trash aimed at illiterate boomers.

The theme of the physically imposing but morally unrighteous AmeriKKKan is present across all East Asian media, but it's not necessarily because they secretly think Americans are world-conquering superhumans or have giant penises or whatever (American WW2 propaganda did try to play this up and it was kind of successful in Japan). It's that Chinese culture simply mapped the white foreigner onto their ancient idea of a demon, which other countries in the region adopted as well. Chinese media is extremely traditional and mostly refuses to use western tropes the way Japanese media does, so this idea of the gigantic white demonic foreigner is still around.
Funnily enough, the Chinese slur for a white person is just "demon" [鬼佬], while the slur for a black person is "black demon" [黑鬼].

Chinese people really do believe that China is the centre of the world, and who can blame them. Europe has only been globally relevant for about 300 years, America and Russia for about 250 years, Japan for 150 years. Of all the currently rising Civilisation-States, China is the one that fits that title the best by far, and is probably the reason we are using that term in the first place.

To me it sounds more like it's objectively unsusual (why else write a story about it?), which would make the story underline that black people are in fact not incapable of achieving those things.

It's not objectively unusual though. It's just perceived that way. Black students in the UK underperforming is an issue, but it's not so universal that you need a patronising highlight reel of the negroes who beat the system.
 
Last edited:

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
Well, I haven't actually read them :smile:
I have however come across articles about poverty among ethnic groups, and that usually correlates to education. Low income = short education (simply put). The Guardian loves to write about inequality.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
I keep seeing interviews where someone disadvantaged as a kid was inspired by such stories and then went on to become something. Many such cases!
It is not that 'black and white" after all :smile: I think there is a thin line between inspiring and undermining. Good intention does not necessarily mean such an article will reach its goal. Devil is always in the details. Especially when the so-called praise goes from an idiot who does not believe that you achieved your success because you are smart, good, and capable of doing it.

E.g. Several years ago one of my colleagues - a female engineer took part in an internal/annual contest where you can provide solutions to existing technological problems. The jury of the most esteemed corporate scientists decides which projects show promise. Winners get the 15-30k$$ prize to cover project expenses. Generally, it is not about the money - but prestige. Her idiot Boss, who was supposed to make public praise made her feel inferior by reminding her (not once) how much this is extraordinary for a woman and how lucky she was. We all felt sorry for her and embarrassed by him at the same time. This guy left the company, she stayed and is making a career but looking back...Was it really needed?

The trend nowadays is to promote 'disadvantaged groups' as you called them - a little bit because "this is the right thing to do" or because of the sole fact they are disadvantaged or underappreciated. At professional career level: Asked if I want to work with more gay, woman, or black people I'd always say - give me the smartest I don't care who they are.
 

Nega-Brutus

Sergeant at Arms
Human communication and epistemology work in subtle ways. Questioning the capabilities of the group in the first place is also acknowledging that enough people in the public carry some sentiment that the group in question is less capable (at the least enough to write about it, apparently). Mutual human understandings are formed through this vague process of internal deductions, experience/inductions but also social forces either validating or eroding your understandings. It means that the way you derive "truth" is in part through a social feedback loop. [e.g., you come up with an idea in your head, you express it (either consciously/subconsciously or implicitly/explicitly), and it is either validated or mocked enough until you start questioning it yourself to the point where you give up on it]. As an uninformed, regular normie, picking up on implicit signals [e.g., applauding a minority] that the minority is doing worse off can make you come to conclude that the group is worse for perhaps justified reasons if you're not informed on the groups' history, as an example. This is especially true because we like to think that we live in a meritocracy where you get what you deserve, as well as because we project our experiences [e.g., my understanding of reality is formed by my experiences. I literally can't relate to people that have different experiences because I don't have comparable experiences] onto other people [e.g., I was able to succeed, hence so should you].

That being said, I still agree with Mad's text about the importance of role models. A good exercise is introspecting which figures have formed your personality. I used to have a VHS of the Mask that I watched almost every day as a kid, and I realized how much being a goofy, well-intentioned person was actually based on... Jim Carrey's role in the Mask. When you do this exercise, you will notice that white boys base their personalities on white males, white girls on white women, black boys on black men, etc.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Human communication and epistemology work in subtle ways. Questioning the capabilities of the group in the first place is also acknowledging that enough people in the public carry some sentiment that the group in question is less capable (at the least enough to write about it, apparently). Mutual human understandings are formed through this vague process of internal deductions, experience/inductions but also social forces either validating or eroding your understandings. It means that the way you derive "truth" is in part through a social feedback loop. [e.g., you come up with an idea in your head, you express it (either consciously/subconsciously or implicitly/explicitly), and it is either validated or mocked enough until you start questioning it yourself to the point where you give up on it]. As an uninformed, regular normie, picking up on implicit signals [e.g., applauding a minority] that the minority is doing worse off can make you come to conclude that the group is worse for perhaps justified reasons if you're not informed on the groups' history, as an example. This is especially true because we like to think that we live in a meritocracy where you get what you deserve, as well as because we project our experiences [e.g., my understanding of reality is formed by my experiences. I literally can't relate to people that have different experiences because I don't have comparable experiences] onto other people [e.g., I was able to succeed, hence so should you].
Very true - that is something I am probably not aware of in a 'tangible' manner but can understand what you want to say.

As far as I agree with the Role Model's importance (therefore with Vader's statement) - I question some forms of 'creating' and 'praising' them to the public and can understand Kentucky's point there. But maybe you are both right that for the greater good it does not matter that much...
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
The trend nowadays is to promote 'disadvantaged groups' as you called them - a little bit because "this is the right thing to do" or because of the sole fact they are disadvantaged or underappreciated. At professional career level: Asked if I want to work with more gay, woman, or black people I'd always say - give me the smartest I don't care who they are.
This is a problem - meritocratic thinking only keeps a status quo and the disadvantaged groups stay disadvantaged.
It's not enough that you are color/organ-blind, the society needs to promote a more balanced representation of its disadvantaged groups in better jobs to get the most of its citizens (if not for some highly ethical reason). And to do this you need positive discrimination and quotas - you get there faster with social engineering.
It's time to introduce hetero quotas in fashion design.
 
Last edited:

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
This is a problem - meritocratic thinking only keeps a status quo and the disadvantaged groups stay disadvantaged.
That is oversimplification. You need the best doctors, engineers, pilots, etc. you can get. You may want to create equall chances to everone aspiring but at the end of the day you need to choose best candidates.
It's not enough that you are color/organ-blind, the society needs to promote a more balanced representation of its disadvantaged groups in better jobs to get the most of its citizens (if not for some highly ethical reason).
I agree but this will require some sort o humanity's catharsis to get there. Social engineering may help.
And to do this you need positive discrimination and quotas - you get there faster with social engineering.
It's time to introduce hetero quotas in fashion design.
Positive discrimination. How this would potentially work?
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
Positive discrimination. How this would potentially work?
The way it already does work. :smile:
That is oversimplification. You need the best doctors, engineers, pilots, etc. you can get. You may want to create equal chances to everyone aspiring but at the end of the day you need to choose best candidates.
Sure, where performance is critical, you need the best people. But not all jobs are like that.
For example, sitting in a parliament or in a board room is hard to assess by measurable performance.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Wasn't aware. Interesting read.
For example, sitting in a parliament or in a board room is hard to assess by measurable performance.
"So you didn't pass the medical school exam, but we still have some vacant seats in the parliament, what say you? No? What about the Senate?"

That's actually a marvelous idea. "God is my witness". I wish I will live the day that my country will have an equal representation of Gay, Lesbian, Women, Man, Black People, Asian People, Silesian People (wink wink @Do not look here), Old People, Young People, etc., and any other secular agents of hope and peace.
 
And to do this you need positive discrimination and quotas - you get there faster with social engineering.

Quotas are the worst idea ever. Everyone I know who was quota-hired quit pretty quickly due to bullying. The people enforcing it resent it, the people who "benefit" end up with impostor syndrome, and nothing fundamentally changes.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If the state wants to bring a group of marginal people into the Metropole, the best way to do that is by materially and concretely improving the economic conditions they live in, not trying to coerce society into recognizing them, especially not by insinuating that one group has it harder than the rest.

You'll notice that nowhere in any of Malcolm X or MLKs speeches or writings did they advocate employment quotas. For them the root of all the issues is material and economic, not social or cultural, or just that some racists have the wrong mindset or need to be educated by the state. Some of the most educated people on Earth are racist.
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
Quotas are the worst idea ever. Everyone I know who was quota-hired quit pretty quickly due to bullying. The people enforcing it resent it, the people who "benefit" end up with impostor syndrome, and nothing fundamentally changes.
I used to think quotas are the worst thing too, but it's a very good mechanism to break glass ceilings, and after initial resentment, I think people tend to accept the reasoning behind it - they simply get used to it and stop questioning it. They might criticize a particularly incompetent hire coming through the quotas, but that's not a big deal.
There's no other mechanism to enforce the kind of diversity the society wants, the old boys clubs wouldn't do it on their own.
"So you didn't pass the medical school exam, but we still have some vacant seats in the parliament, what say you? No? What about the Senate?"
Sure, where performance is critical, you need the best people. But not all jobs are like that.
 

Vermillion_Hawk

Butthurt Bushmaster
Grandmaster Knight
WF&SWBVC
But when university admissions committees start concerning themselves more with what race their potential applicants are rather than if they're a good fit for the programs they're applying for then there are some immediate bad effects and some very serious knock-on effects down the line.

For one, it sets some students up for failure when they get accepted into a program that they do not have the academic skillset for and find themselves quickly buried in their first year. Many of these students drop out, often too late for students on wait lists to join the course spots they've occupied. It's bad for everyone on every level of the equation. It also ends up driving some of the beneficiaries of these policies away from post-secondary education entirely in a world where it has essentially become the standard for entry into a viable career path, as much as that still exists. This is the exact opposite effect these policies are intended to have, and this is without the obvious pendulum-swing reactions and whatnot.

In my personal experience, at least in academia, quotas are generally mostly considered valuable and useful by the whitest ****ers out there trying to prove how great and progressive they are while simultaneously ostracizing any minorities that do actually manage to make it into the department. Just so, the people these quotas are designed to help often find them degrading because they end up feeling like their work matters less than their skin colour.

I was going to put in some bon mot about how maybe quotas would be useful for a McDonald's manager or something but on reflection I can't see how they could conceivably serve a purpose there either.
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
That's an interesting answer to the following question:
"What do you, as a conservative, think are the worst cases of minority quotas from your experience? Please also use this opportunity to point out liberal hypocrisy."
 

Vermillion_Hawk

Butthurt Bushmaster
Grandmaster Knight
WF&SWBVC
Oh no, a conservative! Hide the women!

Is that the only thing you have to say to that? That I might be a conservative and thus the concerns I've pointed out are invalid? And I'm merely supposed to take you at your word that quotas work and are valuable?
 

Nega-Brutus

Sergeant at Arms
To be abundantly clear, Muslims in west Europe are 100% justified in driving their cars into the average social democrat if social democrats are comfortable with explicit or implicit discrimination affecting people's lifes.
 
Top Bottom