Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 2 posts:

• "[META] This sub is closed" by u/minimuminim
• "Happy Cakeday, r/SRSDiscussion! Today you're 10" by u/AutoModerator

This subreddit is no longer taking new posts or comments, but will be left up as an archive.

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Does the left have a blind spot with respect to the increasingly rampant Sinophobia as of late?" by u/mcmanusaur

At this point I think everyone has probably noticed the increase in anti-China submissions on Reddit as of late, particularly over the last several months in the context of the protests in Hong Kong. Regardless of the validity of the criticisms leveled toward China by those posts, I think we also have to acknowledge how they attract a ton of comments that are quite Sinophobic in nature, whether it’s openly racist stereotypes or ignorant generalizations about Chinese culture. I’m not the only one noticing this, as I have seen a handful of other users also point that out, but it’s usually just in passing as part of a larger discussion. Somewhat surprisingly, I haven’t seen any threads dedicated to this topic on any of the places I usually frequent for discussion of leftist perspectives/social justice issues. Indeed, this seems like one issue where the majority of Americans (and maybe Westerners in general) are in lockstep regardless of their position on the political spectrum, and most of the input I have seen from progressive voices have been totally focused on what is transpiring in Hong Kong to the exclusion of these meta-discourse concerns. That said, considering China’s rising significance on the world stage and the relative lack of political agency possessed by Asian people in America (they are not usually a top priority for any politician); I am very concerned about the consequences of letting anti-Chinese sentiment grow and fester under our collective noses. Why does the left seem to have a blind spot toward racism directed at Chinese people, and what can be done to address this?

The plight of Asian men and black women in online dating have gotten lots of media attention. However, looking at the OK Cupid data here and here it looks like treating these issues as analogous is way off. There IS no single racial equivalent to black women for straight men: all Men of Color face severe levels of rejection! The fact that the media focuses on Asian men's rejection specifically is almost suspicious.

This brings up, bigger questions about male vs female desirability in the US and why, despite all the racism, the pool of popular het women in dating has become so much more inclusive (except to black women) than it's het Male counterpart. Is it due to women's partners being more policed? Is it due to the more superficial and sexualized ideas about female attractiveness? And moreover, what's behind the aversion to Men of Color (including black and brown men) and how do we fix it?

With all of the anti-feminism stuff floating around on the internet, and all the communities online dedicated to ridiculing feminism by crucifying fringe enclaves of teenagers on Tumblr, feminism has been all but written off by many people.

Even by those who don't fall too deeply into the well of alt-right ideology and actually share common beliefs with feminists, many will deny themselves as being feminists as they refuse to support an ideology that clearly favours women. In other words, aims to put down men. When I ask them why, their response is that "clearly the term 'feminism' is used because feminists want to put women on a pedestal." Honestly, though I know otherwise and I can't agree with them, I can see where they are coming from.

Do you think, therefore, that feminism should adopt a new moniker? Should we consider renaming the ideology in order to make it approachable and "re-brand" mainstream intersectional feminism in such a way that it separates itself from the fringe movements which many - if not most common feminists - at least do not side with? Or do you feel that it's important to bring with us the history that has brought us to where we are now?

What are your thoughts?

When I was younger, I was admittedly a very sexist, racist man, however my own experiences with discrimination (as I am an immigrant), with living in multiple countries, exposure to many cultures around the world, I found myself becoming very cognizant of my biases and through self-reflection undoing many of the harmful ways of thinking I had been raised to employ.

​

For instance, I have spent a substantial amount of time in Japan, where I experienced frequent fetishism and realized what it was like to be craved for as a nationality and not as an individual. It felt very dehumanizing to be told "I want to sleep with a white guy" and not "I want to sleep with /u/UMEDACHIEFIN" which certainly helped open my eyes.

​

What are your experiences?

Or at least super left leaning, because I have some decent news sites I browse, that seem really left leaning, but then outta nowhere there's annoying articles showing racist bias (or other prejudice). US centric preferred because I want to keep up to date of issues in my country, but I also want to be informed globally, so as long as it has some US issues covered, international is fine too.

I have heard a lot of lesbians use the term "butch" to describe other lesbians, and they are doing this in a way that is not insulting.

My question is if it is OK for non-lesbians to use this term? My instinct is to say that it isn't alright, but that is largely because I have heard homophobic straight people use the term butch in a derogatory way.

So is it never acceptable, or acceptable in certain contexts, or only acceptable for lesbians to use that term?

As a 2nd generation Asian American, I, like many people with my status, long to be accepted in my ancestral company and would feel like my identity was greatly invalidated if I weren't.

​

Except, isn't that racist? Why should my home country accept *me,* a foreigner, just because of my heritage? Isn't that implying that I approve of them *not* accepting people of non-native backgrounds? I can't think of an answer to that except, that, yes, by expecting to feel like I belong, I am being entitled and am defending a system of privilege just because I benefit from it.

Hey, so I know that racial preferences are for the most part pretty racist...but I don't know how to dismantle that, and I want to know how I would go about doing it.

​

My friends noticed that I have a tendency to date South Asian people. I am Southeast Asian. I denied it for a long time but I think I do have a preference. I think it developed because I grew up in a South Asian community with mostly South Asian friends. I've looked around the internet but the racial preferences addressed in those articles don't seem to match what I have.

1. I don't date exclusively. I don't refuse to date people based on race. I have been attracted to people of all racial backgrounds.

2. I don't have stereotypes or expectations about how people of any ethnicity are going to act.

3. It has more to do with beauty standards and what I developed into ideas of what I find attractive.

​

So how do I dismantle this? I'd love to have some idea of how to start to tackle this.

​

Thanks.

As a leftist Jew who's highly critical of Israel and their goal of ethnically cleansing Palestine to form a Jewish ethnostate, I am well aware of the attempts by reactionaries like Ben Shapiro to cynically conflate anti-Zionism with anti-semetic bigotry.

That being said, I was browsing reddit tonight and was disappointed to see such an obvious anti-semetic comment being upvoted which was dressed up by anti-Zionist language

Zionists rule most western governments and the media.[+10]

My question is, how can leftist Jews like myself challenge this anti-semitism without adding ideological ammunition to right-wing Zionists and Islamophobes?

Hi, Biracial adult here (Puerto Rican and Chinese)

I've noticed society seems to forget about us, whether it be me checking off what race I am when I'm filling out a form or seeing people talk about us in Media (which doesn't happen, much if at all).

"Are you hispanic or Latinx (Y/N) if not select a race down below" is a problem I encounter every once in awhile that annoys me. I can't select Latinx and then select Of Asian descent. It's rare that I see the option "Of one or more races"

"What are you" and having to explain in detail on how my parents met as if it's some weird rare happenstance like a meteor crashing on a farm.

And also seeing characters like Artemis Crock (Vietnamese/French) from Young Justice whitewashed, and Miles Morales called Black and some people forget that he's Puerto Rican as well.

Shouldn't we be updating our forms and becoming aware that more and more of us are starting to exist? Non-mixed kids, is it just the lack of being exposed to biracial kids that you forget? What do you think? I'm just a little annoyed. I know you guys support mixed couples getting together (most of the world does by now i suppose), but we should support the results of said unions as much so.

Im interested in this kind of stuff but most the people talking about it all end up being problematic or part of the altright. I’m talking about stuff we know is real like the cia manipulating people

I saw a thread on this matter posted six years ago and I'm curious what the consensus is now. I take part in a left wing Discord server (or did) and was quite surprised to see someone was rather harshly chastised for flippantly implying nazis are sociopaths. (The reaction being "WHAT THE FUCK, HOW DARE YOU! THAT'S ABLEIST TO PEOPLE WITH ASPD") I suggested calming down and approaching the angle with a little more civility since the person in question obviously meant no harm and perhaps hadn't considered the societal effects of the word; that and it's sort of deeply engrained and we all often do things (or at least probably did at some point) like say "idiot" when it's arguably ableist.

I'd kinda previously figured that being diagnosed with ASPD requires you to be a horrible person. That's just the nature of the criteria. Of course there can be people in recovery with heavily reduced symptoms but when someone uses the term sociopath (which technically isn't medical) they're simply pointing out very negative, damaging behaviour associated with ASPD. They're not disparaging anyone trying to get better or making the claim they're sub-human.

I still think tossing out words associated with medical diagnosis is unhelpful and pointless but for different reasons. It unnecessarily pathologises actions that could very well just be that of a completely neurotypical douchebag.

What do you all think? I'd like to know since I was outnumbered in this case to the point that I doubted myself, and I'm always considering whether I might be partly responsible for the oppression of others. Their primary argument is that the usage of sociopath as an insult causes those with ASPD to be treated as "subhuman," but I think that's a bit of a stretch and everyone absolutely should be aware that sociopaths are dangerous and reckless. Stigma is good in this situation, and I don't believe it discourages them from seeking treatment because they don't care either way. Assuming they were interested in other's views on their affliction, (seems extremely unlikely to me...) surely constantly being told that their behaviour is atrocious and requires treatment would have the opposite effect?

All in all I can't see the value in removing the stigmatization of sociopathic behaviours, much less aggressively attacking someone for using the word in passing. Having said that I don't suffer from any cluster B personality disorder and may be grossly uninformed, which is why I'm here.

TL;DR: Asian student with bad language skills exidentally picks up racist slur and repeatedly uses it during class presentation. White student accuses her of being racist and colonialist, talks over her and humiliates her infront of class until asian student breaks down and leaves course. How could this have gone better?

​

Long version: I go to art school in Germany. It's a very open-minded place with a lot of international students. We have many courses, clubs and projects on post-colonialism, racism and discrimination. There is practically no way of getting around these topics and sometimes it's a little too much and repetitive, but that's just my opinion. At least the average student is very aware of the issue.

Now today a Chinese girl held a presentation about racism in 17th century paintings. Before she started she explained that German was a problem for her and she was feeling very insecure but wanted to try presenting in German anyway. Turns out her source texts were slightly outdated and used a racial slur to describe black people (not as common as the n-word, but still bad). She didn't know the word beforehand so she assumed it was just a synonym for "black person" and adapted it. She used it repeatedly all through the presentation. Apart from that the presentation was ok.

Halfway through, most of the listeners were mumbling nervously. The girl presenting just kept going til the end. My friends and I chose not to interrupt as there would still be room for discussion after it. We hoped no one would attack the girl as she was clearly unaware of the mistake.

The moment the presentation ended a white girl raised her hand and started calling her out. She was very harsh about it, calling the Chinese girl racist, colonialist and unbelievably ignorant. She accused her as well as the teacher of not being sensitive enough. In her opinion the professor shouldn't give complex political topics or texts with slurs to international students who aren't capable of the language. The professor, as well as the presenter tried to discuss, but were talked down by the white girl. In the end the Chinese girl had a breakdown and left the course.

I'm only first semester and come from a background where social justice is laughed upon, so I don't know if my thoughts on this are offensive. But is it necessary to call out racism so harshly by all means? Is there such thing as being to sensitized regarding discrimination? In my opinion it would have been enough to educate about the word and move on with the discussion. The way the white girl tried to lecture might be considered whitesplaining. Doesn't this behavior in this specific situation enforce racist power-dynamics? How far does the usage of a word really enforce racism - the bare word, without intentions and connotations known to the speaker? Do intentions or outcomes matter?

And is there some way this could have gone smoothly?

This article, about tribal infanticide in Brazil, raises some troubling questions for me.

​

Believe me, I'm well aware of how thorny an issue western influence on small, tribal societies can be. I know how unforgiving the west can be in its desire to erase native cultures. And whenever the western world is trying to impose capitalism or Christianity on small tribes, or remove them from their lands for industrial development, I'm on the side of the small tribes. In my mind, though, what's presented in the article above is a different matter than those situations:

At one point during the Suzukis stay with the Suruwaha, the tribe apparently decided that two children who did not appear to be developing properly should die. The children’s parents committed suicide rather than kill the two. The tribe then buried the children alive anyway, as was the custom, Suzuki says. One, a girl named Hakani, survived the ordeal but was subsequently left to die by starvation. Her older brother kept her alive for a few years, smuggling her scraps of food, before eventually depositing her at the Suzukis’ feet.

“We got in touch with Funasa by radio,” Suzuki says, referring to the government agency that oversaw health care in indigenous territories at the time. “We told them, ‘There’s a kid here who’s dying.’” A month went by without the health service retrieving the young girl. “They would say, ‘This is really complicated. To take the child out of there would cause her to lose her culture,’” Suzuki recalls.

Here we have a case of a culture killing the disabled and infirm, and where, in some cases, those affected by the decision are actively resisting it. Is a society's right to self-determination at any point outweighed by the right of the marginalized in that society not to be killed?

​

And then there's this:

In other words, according to Almeida’s report, the Suzukis had done irreparable damage to the Suruwaha way of life by showing that certain physical disabilities didn’t necessitate killing.

I just don't see in what sense this can be called "damage." In any other context, if most leftists I knew heard that a society was considering the possibility of maybe not killing its disabled, they'd consider that a positive development.

​

If I asked most people, especially left-leaning people, if killing disabled people for being disabled was unacceptable regardless of whether the legitimate government approved it or how much popular support it had, they'd say yes. I hate to drag the Nazis into this, but it's honestly the only example that comes to mind... if we decide we can't condemn this practice, does this also mean that we can't condemn Aktion T4?

​

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any action by the Brazilian government to deal with this, especially not with Bolsanaro at the helm. This is more about whether it's acceptable to oppose tribal infanticide in principle and the limits of group autonomy vs. individual rights.

I don't know if this belongs here. It's kinda related to ableism, I guess. I just don't feel comfortable posting elsewhere. Feel free to take it down if it doesn't belong.

I learned I have autism this year. It's made things make a lot more sense, but now I'm afraid of how society views me. I feel like I'm expected to look and act 'autistic', and if I don't I'm viewed as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Am I expected to wear that blue 'I have autism please be patient with me' hat? Am I expected to be incompetent and helpless, like a child? If I'm not, will society views me as 'a fraud' or creepy? Am I allowed to be sexy? Or is that viewed as wrong? Am I allowed to have a relationship? Or will my partner be arrested for being a predator, since I technically can't consent, due to autism?

Basically I feel like society expects me to be an overgrown six year old, and if I'm not I'll be viewed as gross and wrong, or a fraud.

I'm a trans woman, but I don't want to merely be replacing toxic masculinity informed ways of thinking and behaving with more feminine ways of approaching life. I want to have in my gender toolkit ready means of expressing myself in healthy masculine ways, and I'd also like to be better prepared to help men in my life with this.

I'd figured it must have been asked before, but I searched and couldn't find anything here. A broader Google search wasn't as fruitful as I'd hoped.

Despite growing up, and continuing to be, rather poor, I've still managed to amass a rather large collection of video games spanning multiple consoles (I don't know how it happened either). Even now, I have a Switch and manage to get games for it. Not all the time, but a couple during birthday and Christmas. It's 99% Nintendo games, they're the only ones that interest me.

Isn't this all bad and greedy? Society is corrupt, corporations are evil, and yet, despite being poor, I still go out of my way to support one! Doesn't that make me just as greedy? Maybe it's silly and I'm thinking way to hard and I should just buy what makes me happy, but at the same time, I feel like buying anything that isn't for survival, in our current society, is morally bankrupt. I mean, I use emulators! Isn't this subconsciously acknowledging that I view Nintendo as evil? Granted it's all games they never rereleased (except Yoshi Island, it was rereleased, but not rereleased stand alone. It's not like I can get it on Wii U Virtual Console). Or, am I being greedy using emulators? I don't deserve every game in the world!

I'm probably thinking too hard. Sorry for the potentially irrelevant wall of text vomit. Hey, classism and money are relavent topics to social justice, right?

For context and information for people who weren't aware - it is a tradition in some Buddhist orders for people who become monastics, in some way ordained (or the equivalent in whatever tradition) or simply confirmed lay members (I guess sort of the equivalent of baptism) to be given a new name. This name will generally have some spiritual significance intended to apply to the specific person. Many people will actually use this new name and go by it day to day, rather than just treating it as a new middle name which they hold but do not use in every day life.

Many of these names tend to be derived from Asian (largely Indian - most often Pali or Sanskrit) languages and their use by Western white people can leave me feeling conflicted.

On the one hand it can be pretty jarring, for reasons I think most people would appreciate, to hear someone obviously Western and white calling themselves by an obviously Asian derived name. I'm sure that for people here I don't need to go into the risks of cultural appropriation if this was something white people were doing simply because they thought it was fun or cool.

On the other hand a couple of points:

1. I do believe that most of these people are genuinely very well intentioned (although I get that being good intentioned doesn't mean you aren't fucking up), respectful of the traditions these names come from, and both appreciative of and respectful to the actual meanings and implications.

2. It's worth noting that, in lots of Buddhist traditions, Sanskrit or Pali (which the names tend to derive from) are considered sacred/liturgical languages (think Hebrew in relation to the Torah and prayers in general in Orthodox Judaism and still in certain cases even in reform Judaism, or Classical Arabic in relation to the Qur'an and prayer in most of Islam). As a comparison to Islam, many/most people of whatever race who convert tend to change their name to an Islamic one derived from Arabic traditions either on converting and/or on completing Hajj and nobody seems to mind.

Thoughts?

Hi there,

I work as a teacher in germany for children, that just came here and are not that capable of speaking german, yet. We are rehearsing for a play and i had the idea to dance a Haka with them, because you don't have to speak that much and it is great way to express yourself with your body. On the one end i think, that it's not my right to steal that part of culture, but on the other end i think it's great way for them to participate and communicate.

It would be nice to hear your opinions on this.

Here is a video of a Haka:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt6GRghrmaU

and the wiki-article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haka

So I follow the always ready to tell it like it is N.K. Jemisin on Twitter. Her most recent tweet mentioned the chatter she'd been hearing on JK Rowling, asking what it was about, etc.

https://twitter.com/nkjemisin/status/1044993263898382338

The replies all basically stated that Rowling is catching hell for casting Nagini in FB2 as an Asian woman cursed by Voldemort and forced to be his slave/carry a part of his soul. The thread universally decried this move as tone-deaf, horribly racist, and typical of Rowling, who they all seemed to despise.

One of the replies stated:

PoC = animal / pet / slave, even worse! Being turned into a living soul vessel for Voldemort. I don't know what's worse, her expecting us to believe she planned this for Nagini all along, or what that would mean for how she wrote Nagini in the books.

Others did mention it was nice to see an Asian American actress get a role in a big film, but did it have to be the animal slave of a dark wizard?

I can definitely see the point they're making, and to an extent I agree. But as a writer, and someone who includes people of many nationalities in my character mix, this also concerned me. Disclaimer: I'm white, although I make an active effort to not be a jackass. My post history will probably tell you I'm passionate about women's rights and the rights of PoC. I try to be respectful, participate in discussions only where I'm welcome (unless it's /r/gaming where I shout at neckbeards, but they can go fuck themselves) and have no issues admitting to my own privilege, nor do I shy away from things that make me uncomfortable regarding said privilege.

My question is this: what makes Nagini's portrayal as an Asian woman so offensive?

Is it because Rowling is white? Is it because it's stereotypical of PoC to be treated terribly in literature? They're not exactly treated well in real life in many places, so it's not inaccurate. And isn't the terrible connotation sort of the point? It's not like Dumbledore was out cursing minorities. This is Voldemort. His magic Nazi ass probably reveled in doing shit like this. Of course, this is all speculation on everyone's part until the movie comes out, but I imagine this wasn't written as a nod to equality. Just the opposite.

I totally get and agree that we need more minority voices in literature and entertainment. But should I then be excluded from having any non-white people in my books? That seems so limiting. And if I do write only white characters, would I then catch flak for that, too?

I'm interested to hear the reactions of the folks here. This one is throwing me for a little loop, so I felt the need to start a discussion.

My whole life (I'm 31) I've had issues with being misgendered - mostly as a kid. I say 'issues' but honestly none of it ever bothered me. I thought, "If someone/society thinks I'm a girl, or a boy, there's nothing with being either, so why would I be upset?" In 5th grade my teacher referred to me by the "wrong" pronoun for weeks until a student corrected him. I thought the whole thing was more amusing than offensive/embarrassing, but he wrote me a huge apology letter later. Although I almost never have this come up at my age now, recently my work has asked us to put our preferred pronouns in our email signature and I'm not sure that I feel comfortable doing that.

For some reason, I don't feel like it's my place to tell people how to gender me, nor do I really care. It's fairly obvious that I present as a certain gender, but I wouldn't be offended if someone referred to me as any other. I do, however, have an odd and gender-ambiguous name, so those I correspond with via email might prefer to know which gender 'I am'. That seems reasonable to me, I guess. However, I've had friends and acquaintances chastise me or give me looks when I say, "I don't have any preferred pronoun" - when asked at as introduction/icebreaker to a meeting, for example. Sometimes I feel like it is more of a game/formality to some people rather than a way to make others feel comfortable - but maybe my refusal could potentially make people feel uncomfortable??

Am I being insensitive or out of line here? Is this sort of like refusing to give my name to someone?

Hello, World. I would like to change you. To save you. I have a few things I need to say and I beseech you to listen. Please.

Recently, my friend Jack committed suicide. It's really been eating at me. I'd known Jack since the 3rd grade. We weren't best friends or anything, though. We were cool but if anything, I was secretly jealous of him. He had a whole family. He was tall, white, and handsome. He was a semi-pro surfer. He seemed quite happy. He had his whole life before him and he took it. He took it himself. Jack. Jack of all people. I've had friends die on me before but this was different. In the past, it was a drug overdose. Or car crash. Accidents. I can't recall many suicides. Certainly not from one of the "cool kids". But here we are.

I say that to say this.

I'm sick. So very, very sick. No, I'm not ill. I'm quite healthy, in fact. I'm sick of the way things are. I'm sick of our collective and willful ignorance. I'm sick of the rampant injustice and inequality. I'm sick of the exploitation. I'm sick of the opioid epidemic. I'm sick of the school shootings. I'm sick of my friends dying dozens of years too soon...FOR PREVENTABLE REASONS. And you should be, too.

Everyone. Please. Listen. See. Open your eyes so you can open your heart, mind, and soul.

Things don't have to be this way. Who is REALLY in power here? Donald Trump?! Are you kidding me?! We let the Russians stick a demented, washed up reality tv show star in the Oval Office...AND WE'RE ACTUALLY OBEYING HIM?! Sorry. Didn't mean for this to get political. That's not my aim. This goes much, much deeper than that. This transcends any and all political affiliations. Yes, our current president is a joke. And an insult that he followed Obama. OBAMA. But my point is...no. He's not in charge. We are. We, the People are in control. Or at least, we should be.

Our founding fathers gave us the constitutional right to revolt if anything jeopardized democracy and our freedom. We should have used that power YEARS ago. But we didn't. And why not? Because we got too comfortable. And, the government played us all against each other using race, money, drugs, and misinformation. Brilliantly, masterfully so. I hate to say it but I give credit where it's due.

You know as well as I do that the "system" is designed to make us indebted wage slaves or imprison us. Every day, we blindly follow the orders those in power give to us as if they were the word of God himself.

C'mon! Aren't you sick of the lies?! Don't you want more out of life?! Are you really satisfied with your 9 to 5? Your cushy little desk job? How can you sleep at night when kids are starving to death? Are being exploited in sweat shops? Are being tied up and raped to death?! I won't wait for an answer. There is no excuse.

So here; let me ask you a question to help you see the bigger picture: What do you want? No, really? What do you want? Money? Sex? Power? What? And then, what would you do if you got it? How satisfied would you be? For how long? Get real and get off the hedonic treadmill. It's never enough and never will be enough. Things can never bring you true joy and happiness. So what can? Ending unnecessary suffering. Seeing the joy on someone else's face.

I'll tell you what I want. I want the homeless to have homes. I want the hungry to be fed. I want the cold to be warm. I want the exploited to be free. I want to close the sweatshops. I want to avenge the dead. I want freedom. I want peace.

I, too, have a dream. And it's VERY achievable. But right now, we're all living in a nightmare of our own design. Why?

I'm not exactly calling for a national political revolution. But I am calling for a mental, spiritual, emotional, and financial one.

Things need to change. A LOT. AND SOON. But no one needs to die. I truly believe the pen is mightier than the sword. My rationale is that if I write, I won't have to riot. So please. It just takes you. Us. Together. Alone, we're powerless. That's what they want. United, standing together as one....we're unstoppable.

WE can do this. WE can fix things. TOGETHER, WE can right the wrongs.

How do we start? Simply. Love thy neighbor. Know them. If you don't, introduce yourself. Greet people you pass. Compliment others. Pick up litter that isn't yours. Make a new friend and then go volunteer with them somewhere.

Life is about living, not having a cooler car or bigger house. So again, get off the hedonic treadmill and your high horse. This is a call to action. Reach out. Volunteer. Save a life. Feel something again. Feel alive. Because soon, at the rate we're going....on the path WE'VE set...you won't get another chance again.

So let's REALLY make America great again. Then, we can make the world great for the first time ever in modern history. Please. Inaction is still an action. Let's not be complicit in our mutual destruction and corruption. We must fight. With love.

That is all. Thank you.

I saw this post earlier today saying that the theory that Native Americans came to the continent through the Bering Strait (the Bering Strait Theory, or BST) has been discredited because archeological objects have been found that predate when the Bering Strait could have been frozen over. Fair enough.

The bit that I'm not as sure about is:

How many times do we have to reiterate we’ve always been here, only for scientists to attempt to find every gotdamn reach to discredit our own narratives? [...] We’ve always been here. That’s deeply engrained in our culture. Every tribe has a story about it.

Now, I'm white as hell so I don't really know what it's like to have my culture systematically denied and erased, and I can certainly understand why someone would be upset about it. But even if there is a wide cultural belief that the Native Americans had always been there since their origin, I don't see what that has to do with what actually happened, any more than we want to take the widespread occurrences of flood myths as proof that there really was a worldwide flood.

Presumably lots of cultures have narratives that say that humanity just so happened to be created in the area where that culture is dominant, and they clearly can't be all correct.

I didn't try to argue with this person because I knew nothing productive could come of arguing with someone I don't know like that, but if I were in a situation where discussion about this would be reasonable (because we were in a group setting talking about it), how would I make these points in a respectful way?

It’s baffling how many people don’t get how fucked up this notion is. It’s not “just a preference” and I am going to attempt to show those of you that think this exactly what message you’re sending when you say this, even if you don’t mean to.

To say, for instance, “I don’t date black people” says one of two things. 1) I have personally met every black person on planet Earth, and have not been physically attracted to any of them. (While this technically isn’t impossible, it’s obviously not what people are saying). 2) There is something that you don’t like about “black people” that you connect with every black person in existence. The way that I realized that the latter was what usually is the case was that I asked someone why they didn’t date a specific race, and they couldn’t tell me why. This usually is the point that they vocalize to themselves the exact reason why they personally don’t find a specific race attractive, and it’s pretty fucked up. The notion that you can just not be attracted to a specific race breaks down when you realize just how many people of a race exists. I understand what people are saying when they say it’s just a preference, but they are missing the point that they aren’t saying that they prefer a specific trait, they are saying that they are averse to an entire group of people.

My example of an actual preference when it comes to dating is that I have a preference for white people when it comes to who I usually find attractive. I have realized over time that my attraction to white people comes from the fact that I went to a predominantly white school for pretty much my entire childhood and adolescence. Because of this, it took me a long time to find anyone else attractive because all I had seen when I was going through puberty were white people. This could be what other people experience, but it’s a little beside the point I am trying to make. So many people are reluctant in calling out their own behavior because they are afraid people will think that they are racist. This is a big issue I see in a lot of well-meaning people. They believe that just because someone does something that is perceived as racist means that they themselves are racist. Most of the people I know have done/said something that was pretty racist, but that just means that they did something that was racist. Unless you believe that your whiteness is objectively better than any other race, than you aren’t racist. Being racist is more than just having some problematic opinions about things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to call attention to racist behavior/actions, it just means that we should try to have more discussions about race. The conversation shouldn’t go “You did this racist thing, that means you’re racist and a bad person”, what should happen is “you did this racist thing, let’s talk about why”. I believe if more people took this approach, a lot of people would stop being so defensive when the topic of race is brought up.

Thoughts?

Over the past 30 years, conservatives have begun retreating further and further into their sources of propoganda, mainly fox news. Weve come to the point where fox news controls the viewpoints of most people above the age of 50, including the president of the united states. As much as it would be nice to ignore them, I think the most effective way to release the stranglehold racists have on american politics would be to delegitimize fox news to the american public and show them that the "fake news" isnt as fake as they think.

How can this be done?

Not sure how much context I need to provide, but Sarah Jeong is a journalist who was recently hired by the NYT. There was/is some controversy over some inflammatory tweets she made (along the lines of "lol white people suck", etc.). See here for the NYT statement on the situation, and here for her own statement.

So I am having trouble organizing my own thoughts on the situation. Personally, I don't see her past tweets as racist and I 100% buy the explanation of "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". I frequent SRS proper and am familiar with how cathartic that kind of rhetoric can be. I'm also cognizant of the fact that most/all of the people fanning the flames of this controversy aren't doing so in good faith (e.g., its mostly alt-right personalities jumping on the supposed "hypocrisy of the left").

I guess what I struggle with is how to explain this to folks who aren't as immersed in social justice thought. Ordinary folks see tweets like "white men are bullshit" and ask, "well, why isn't that racist?". I find myself hemming and hawing about power differentials, prejudice+power, punching up vs punching down, etc., and its all very unsatisfying. I can see how its very easy to latch on to the "stupid SJWs don't believe racism against white people exists" talking point, and its very difficult to counter.

Any thoughts from others here? Is there a succinct way to explain the social justice point of view without coming across as either hypocritical or overly academic?

Its becoming clear that Amazon does not treat its employees very well and doesn't care either. The last time this happened with a retail company (walmart), the bad press started to force Walmart to change their ways.

Expect this time, the news is out, but Amazon has saturated the market so much, and have made it so easy to purchase items without seeing the horrible working conditions, they just keep getting away with it. I have begun starting to boycott Amazon, but that just isn't going to work this time.

What I am starting to feel is that we need government action to put them in their place. Its seems like the only way now to stop their tyranny.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I wonder if the current federal government even cares. I dont want to push a political agenda here, but it seems the current republican controlled govt has no intention of breaking up monopolies anymore. If we were able to bring a more moderate agenda back into office, could we stop Amazon?