Johann
-
Posts
2,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Johann
-
-
8 minutes ago, XRay said:
I am going to disagree about intent does not matter. I think intent and impact both matter. I think it is better to take our time before acting to see how big of an impact it actually is, instead of just assuming it is going to negatively affect Asians and Chinese people significantly. Holding people who are responsible and in power accountable for their actions is just as important in my opinion. Prematurely banning a term when it turns out it is not being used in a racist way effectively removes one way of voicing discontent with nothing in return. I think the best course of action is to assess the impact first before acting.
If a person has any good intent, they'll listen when other people let them know they're fucking up and doing something that promotes racism. You don't play a game of Wait & See with the impacts of racism.
The irony is probably lost on you, but your wait and see mentality on this perfectly parallels the bad government response to the virus itself. Does this mean we should hold people like you responsible for the uptick in violence and harassment towards Asian people?
-
Just now, eclipse said:
I already did? You're hyper-focusing on only the policing part of being a police officer, and completely ignoring that the human part is what fuels everything. Which means that if all you can see is a faceless group, then there's no way you'll be able to truly understand why it's an issue.
You reduced systemic racism to an issue of people not being nice to each other. I'm saying the entire system is hard-coded to weigh heavily against black people and minorities, including through laws and how easily exploitable it is, and that the solution requires a complete restructuring of the system. Bad cops and bad policing in general are symptoms of a failing system, and there's not enough oversight addressing it.
-
1 minute ago, eclipse said:
I don't think you get the scope of the issue. But if you want to continue to mindlessly hate a group as an entity, then discussing this with you is pointless.
Explain the scope to me, then. I see the problem being systemic from the federal to the local level, including quotas, the war on drugs, deep-seeded long-term impacts of Jim Crow laws and slavery, stereotyping, racial profiling, intimidation (particularly during plea bargaining), evidence being planted or tampered with, bad/false testimonies, prison sentencing, the myriad of problems with the prison system itself, and so on.
-
19 minutes ago, eclipse said:
To say "it's only the police's fault" is an extremely shallow way of framing the problem. Because it's not like someone becomes a police officer and suddenly thinks that every black person is a criminal.
It really is the fault of the police, 100%. Many people become police knowing they will have special power they can abuse with impunity (white supremacist groups encourage their members to become police as well). Meanwhile, black people know full well that they can and will be stopped, questioned, detained, and/or shot at for doing literally anything. Both sides also know the criminal justice system is weighed heavily against black people and heavily in favor of police.
The problem with the idea that "police need to get better at policing themselves" is that they don't want to. There's no incentive to do so, no impetus at any level. Yet black people are constantly told to watch their behavior, whether by authorities wanting to keep them in line, or by their parents and friends who are pleading with them to not become another "_____ while black" headline. Saying there are behavior problems on both sides is an extremely thoughtless thing to say.
-
23 minutes ago, XRay said:
My family is Chinese. My non-blood uncle and aunt who I care about deeply are Chinese. Two of my best friends are Chinese. I do not like to claim my parent's ethnicity (this is a personal issue, so I am not going into here), but if you DNA test me, it should say Chinese.
I agree that we should tread carefully around race, but we also should not overreact and call something racist without considering the full context. Republicans could have easily said using "Russian inference" is racist against Russians and argue the term is 100% about race, as it is in the same format to the term and it lumps one group of people with a government. Things are not black and white like that. Building a wall is pretty racist without even mentioning an ethnicity, trade war against China and restricting Huawei though are pretty legitimate and not racist given the geopolitical situation. Racism is dangerous, but so is overreaction to racism, probably not to the same degree, but overbearing political correctness does push people away from the left and it desensitizes people to care about what the left has to say.
And this applies to both the left and right when they get trigger happy about labeling things as racist, communist, or whatever -ist, and over prioritizing one issue over another issue. Labelling things like that is polarizing, it makes people defensive, defensiveness shuts down people's willingness to listen, and listening to the other side is something we have not been doing a lot of lately. There is a price to pay when we automatically jump to simple solutions like banning a term without fully thinking it through, and I think it is more prudent to wait and see first before automatically labelling something as racist. Simple solutions are sometimes good, but sometimes it is not.
You're getting a bit off topic here, but the bottom line is that intent is irrelevant when determining if an act is racist, only the impacts matter. In this case, the impact is that calling the disease by where it was first identified, rather than by its actual name, reinforces stereotyped thinking in many people's minds about not only Chinese people, but East Asian people in general. It's a racist name. Stop defending an act of racism.
-
Nifl Felicia (Nifelicia?) would be extremely tempting. I've never liked the maid outfits.
-
While we're bumped, rumors had been floating around that this'll be a late Spring/early Summer release, though the Coronavirus stuff may have changed that. There is also a rumor of a Nintendo Direct happening in the very near future (like probably this week) with a release date.
-
3 hours ago, XRay said:
I think this issue is just the usage of language and free speech. It is not necessary to give a new name to COVID-19, but this name is not just a new name, it is a way to voice grievances and political dissent to hold people responsible and in power accountable. You might think it is pointless to use names this way, but I think this speech is worth being expressed.
Blaming China is absolutely warranted. And just because we are blaming China does not mean we are not holding our own government accountable. We are not placing all the blame on China either. We are still criticizing our own government for failures. This issue also would not have turned as political as it did if China did not play the blame game first and said the United States should have went along with them in suppressing information instead of saying the truth. Keep in mind that China is also using propaganda to obscure its negligence, and using the term puts their negligence under heavy spotlight.
It is reasonable for people to voice their grievances in response to a threat to their friends and family, especially against a political system that suppresses free speech and jeopardizes the health of people around the world through misinformation. Silencing grievances and political speech is wrong in my opinion. Even if I do not have family in China, the fact that China's actions has jeopardized my family in Canada, New Zealand, and the United States should still warrant a loud complaint from me.
And calling it American disease is fine too. Trump disease is even better in my opinion; I really do not want him to win the election. There is no need to limit it to just one name.
This has nothing to do with race, which is the next issue.
It's not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of hate speech. Protesting this way is meaningless and stigmatizing Chinese people is harmful. Even when you criticize "China", as in the whole country, and not the government/Xi Jinping specifically, it's very likely that some readers (including lurkers) aren't aware that you're referring to only the later. You don't get a pass because you're afraid of how the virus might affect your family, or because you've arbitrarily decided it "has nothing to do with race" when it's 100% about race.
3 hours ago, XRay said:There are indeed better ways to criticize a government. It is not a good practice to name a disease after a nation either. And there is a risk of making life harder for the people and descendants of that nation too.
However, I think that risk is low. For example, when I said "China" in the previous section, it is pretty obvious I am referring to Pooh Bear and his pig sty, and there is no confusion that I am not placing the blame on the Chinese people. This is not very different from saying "Russian interference" in the context of our elections; no one needs to explain that it is directed at Putin and the Russian government and not the people. This also applies in reverse too; when people say "Black Lives Matter," no one is saying that black lives matter more than others; only the densest people and those in the right claim that and want to feel included with the stupid "All Lives Matter" slogan. Until the term actually acquires a negative racial vibe and is used extensively in that way to attack Asian and Chinese Americans, saying that using the term is racist is jumping the gun a bit.
In this thread so far, when people used the term, it has been exclusively used to criticize Pooh Bear and/or his pig sty, and it was nowhere close to being hate speech where it is used to blame people with Asian or Chinese ancestry. I have no issue with limiting and controlling hate speech, but making people self censor and feel guilty about using certain speech that has the potential to be hate speech, but is not actually hate speech, gets in the way of free speech. Limiting speech this way makes me feel uncomfortable because people's grievances and political dissent is legitimate. Not everyone knows the most politically correct way to say something. Anyone would get defensive if people misconstrued their words as racist when they have no intention of being racist. The term is not even close to being on the same level as "Mexicans are bringing drugs, crimes, and rapists." When people who are clearly not racist have to explain they are not being racist for using language that is not close to being hate speech, that is when I think political correctness is starting to become overbearing.
I have not used the term even once in this post, and no one is confused about what term I am referring to. However, not everyone have the time (although they should now if they are staying at home) or are word savvy enough to police their own words like I just did. Out of respect for those who may be offended, I will not use the term, but I think it is premature to automatically call people racist for using the term, especially when they have a legitimate grievance and political dissent. There are hate crimes directed at Asians and Chinese people right now, but I am not sure if using the term actually has any significant effect on hate crimes. I prefer the wait and see a little more before discouraging people from using the term.
You're running on assumptions. You can't be sure what anybody who reads your posts interprets your words to mean, even if you only factor those who post here regularly. Countless people misinterpret the meaning of phrases, etc, which is how Blue Lives Matter came about.
This is a lot of effort on your part to explain why you think it's ok to use a racist term, when the simple option is to accept that it's racist, refrain from using it, and move on. This thread has had a Chinese person and a mod both explicitly say that it's racist and they don't want to hear it. Please listen to them.
-
1 hour ago, Integrity said:
i can weigh in on this from a (relatively) unique perspective
i live on a farm in relatively rural ohio, and varmint are a genuine problem - coons, coyotes, foxes, hawks, you name it. i do not need assault rifles to do my job, but access to single-shot or semi-automatic .22 rifles or 12-gauge shotguns is a massive comfort for me because i'm able to respond to immediate threats to my livestock in a way even the commonly-cited combat crossbow cannot give. i have killed with these, and will kill again, because that's the reality here. i would be at a significant bodily risk attacking a raccoon with a spear or some other melee weapon, and a distinctly lowered ability to kill with a bow or a crossbow, if i found one attacking my birds.
this is only to note that there is more nuance than 'guns' to the problem - there is literally no reason for a civilian to own a fully automatic 5.56 assault rifle, but that doesn't meant there is literally no reason for a civilian to own a gun.
Right on, this is what proper gun use looks like-- you know how to use it safely, and you don't have wild fantasies of using it to save people in Nakatomi Tower.
A lot of gun rights proponents get it in their head that gun control is about taking away every single gun ever, which is not really the case and generally muddles the discussion. I don't begrudge anyone for feeling so uncomfortable around guns that they'd prefer a world where they didn't exist though.
-
23 hours ago, eclipse said:
3. I don't think the issue with police and black people will be solved any year soon. There's a lot of behaviors that need to be unlearned on both sides. As for guns, I think it would be best if beat cops were restricted to means that are a little less lethal (like tasers). Guns would be on a per-case basis.
You'll have to elaborate, especially when police regularly target black people for doing perfectly normal everyday things. The problem is squarely on police behavior/mentality.
-
9 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:
I'm basically in-line with @Jotari on this (after posting, I realized that what I said was basically a rewording of their own). I similarly expressed that I wasn't in favor of referring to this disease by its place origin (I would extend this to other diseases, like Spanish flu). And obviously, suspicion / prejudice / acts of violence against people of perceived Chinese descent, on the basis of this disease, is inexcusable.
I do think there's room, though, to ask on what basis are people referring to the virus as "Chinese". If it's an attempt to place the blame on people of that country, or whose descent is from that part of the world, then it's almost certainly racist - or at the very least, jingoistic. If, rather, it's an attempt to blame the disease (and/or its spread) on the Chinese government, then I would say it's not entirely inaccurate, albeit possibly nationalistic. My own understanding is that, while China's government has taken strong steps to curtailing the disease recently, they could have been more proactive and transparent earlier on, potentially saving lives in their own country and abroad.
At the very least, I hope we can agree that criticizing the government of other (specifically non-white-majority) countries, while possibly motivated by racial or ethnic prejudice, is not necessarily so. Again, though, I don't believe now is the time for assigning blame, unless it's in a manner that propels meaningful positive action against the virus.
By that same logic, we can call it the American Disease due to how poorly the Trump administration and many state governments have handled it. The disease already had a name, and giving it a new one isn't necessary, especially when the only reason to do so is to lump the blame onto how one nation responded to it. This whole situation is also showing how dumb a lot of people are, so expecting them to take a name like that as anything beyond blaming all of China is absurd.
There are countless better ways to criticize a government. Naming a disease after the whole nation doesn't do that, it just makes life harder for the people and descendants of that nation.
-
On 3/19/2020 at 2:36 PM, eclipse said:
(hey @Johann mind putting a blurb about this in the first post?)
Added. Hope you don't mind, but I also quoted what you said about misnaming the virus, to better ensure people know that it's the official mod position on that matter.
16 minutes ago, AvatarofDiscord said:1: Personally I don’t think Trump calling it Chinavirus was all that bad since if the news about China actually keeping news on the down low about the Coronavirus is true, they deserve to be called out for the pandemic, but I don’t think the president can say that it’s Chinas government fault for the virus directly so it’s the next best thing
The problem with calling it that is that it puts the blame on ALL people of China, or Chinese descent. There's no distinguishing the government, and it's very ineffectual as a means of criticizing said government. That name spreads ill will towards Chinese people and nothing more. Don't use it.
16 minutes ago, AvatarofDiscord said:2: People shouldn’t be fighting about politics in general right now since this virus is starting to kill people and we have no vaccine or cure, save that shit for after the world is less in immediate danger and show some basic empathy towards others during this virus
The government plays the most crucial role in preparation, education, response, recovery, relief, etc. Arguing about the failings in their response is absolutely necessary to ensure that the problems are addressed. This whole situation is testing our government, our economies, and effectively all other systems, and it's essential that we learn from whatever failings we see.
-
5 hours ago, Jotari said:
I did feel the user was a troll, especially with the whole "More Rights is always good, less rights is always bad" logic they were trying to pull in the global politics thread.
Now, with that being said, having a dedicated thread on this subject doesn't seem the worst thing in the world, as it is, sadly, an on going issue. I was waiting to voice my opinion on this matter after the thread got locked. Which is while I'm fully supportive of stricter gun right laws, I don't think that would immediately solve the problem. It's a much more deeply ingrained problem than simply having or not having the laws. One of escalation. It's actually put pretty well with the ending of Batman Begins. Criminals in the USA feel they need to have a gun. Police believe they need to have guns to deal with criminals. People believe they need to have guns to protect themselves because of the criminals too. Even if gun access becomes much more legally stricter, there's still going to be more guns than people. The guns themselves need to be reduced in the system. Likely with a costly buy back program. But above all else I think things need to be viewed long term and the market for gun production must be severely hindered, otherwise the number of guns will just keep on increasing. Additionally the police should put more focus on tasers over guns. So criminals (and ordinary black people) won't feel like their actual life is under threat whenever the police show up.
There's definitely a few things to think about:
- Why do people think/feel they're safer with a gun around? It's certainly not necessary and there are plenty of instances of people accidentally shooting family members.
- If criminals desire guns, then doesn't it make sense to look at what factors increase levels of crime? The most significant factor I've seen is economic hardship/poverty, and so by looking at what causes and perpetuates poverty, we can address it, and subsequently reduce crime.
- Do police need guns, and if so, at what point should they be used? Police are trained to use lethal force as a last resort, but many instances (notably situations with unarmed black people) show it's often completely uncalled for. Among other issues with police, it seems it's not only a matter of capacity for violence, but willingness.
-
1 minute ago, XRay said:
I prefer to stay neutral on this for now. If people are using it as a way to voice political dissent, I do not think it is right to silence them. If it gets into hate speech and racism territory though, then I will encourage others to stop using it.
It's an extremely bad way to voice political dissent, in part because it's racist, and also because it's not clear what you're criticizing. Having a clear message that isn't misunderstood or co-opted (especially by an already racist/xenophobic audience) is incredibly important here.
-
15 minutes ago, XRay said:
I guess I will concede on this, but I would not fault others if they choose to use term China virus either unless they are doing so in a racial way. From how I see it so far, the term carries more of a negative political connotation rather than a negative racial connotation. I will change my mind later if it does have more of a negative racial connotation, but for now, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are primarily using it in a political way.
It inherently carries a negative racial connotation. Don't do it, and encourage others to stop if you can.
-
6 minutes ago, Ingen said:
The problem of how to manage variable and intermittent wind and solar energy is something I've been dabbling in for quite some time. AMA.
With enough of an installation base and battery/reserve systems, it wouldn't be a problem. It's common for people with photovoltaic systems on their houses to get credited for their excess energy production. There's also a lot that can be done in terms of efficiency, with decentralized energy systems helping against losses from transmission being one example.
-
2 minutes ago, eclipse said:
The "don't name diseases after people" thing is probably the most questionable out of the table, but that isn't the discussion for this thread.
How so? Surely it could tarnish a person's legacy, or affect people who happen to have a similar name.
-
6 hours ago, Tryhard said:
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'mass shooting'. Most official sources classify it as four victims or more being injured, fatally or otherwise, including the shooter.
The video he posted seemed to think this was an unreasonable metric for a claim of a mass shooting. I don't really see the problem with it being defined as four or more to be honest.
Yeah, it's a bit complicated since there's no universally agreed definition, even by the US government:
QuoteThere is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end—the gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example.
US government does legally defines a "mass killing" as follows (note that this does not exclude violence from other means):
Quote"(M)(i) At the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a State or political subdivision, the Attorney General may assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings. Any assistance provided under this subparagraph shall be presumed to be within the scope of Federal office or employment.
-
"(i) For purposes of this subparagraph—
- "(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and
- "(II) the term ‘place of public use’ has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code."
By either definition, there's still plenty of data to contradict @Jason-SilverStarApple's claim that there's only one every few years. In 2018, there were 27 instances that the FBI deemed "active shooter" incidents, with 85 people directly killed and 128 were wounded (these numbers exclude the shooters themselves).
-
"(i) For purposes of this subparagraph—
-
@XRay Naming a disease/virus after locations, people, food, species, cultural things (such as jobs, industries), or generally fear-inciting terms is bad since they're both misleading and stigmatizing. This is the standard set by both the CDC and WHO.
Helpful sources:
-
The demo is now available! Pretty sure it's out for all platforms, I'm downloading it now from the Switch NA e-shop. Lets you try any party combo and goes up to the first boss.
-
Continuing from the other thread--
15 hours ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:Do you understand why what you just said is laughably wrong?
"A "good guy with a gun" is actually really, really bad for something like an active shooter situation." indeed. Christ, that's right up there with "If you kill your enemies they win".
You look at the two examples I brought up and tell me if the police showed up in time to save anyone. Then you tell me if the straws you're grasping at have any worth.
Gun control laws don't stop gun crime, they just make life worse for law-abiding citizens. Stop supporting gun control laws, and stop trying to make life worse for law-abiding citizens.
I'm literally explaining to you the best practices used by police nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI; when the situation involves a random person running around with a gun, the last thing you want is another random person also running around with a gun. The police and other responders can't tell if this "good guy" is a good guy or actually another shooter. They have to treat anyone with a weapon as another shooter.
The example you brought up of the old man at church is an outlier, not the norm. He was the church's head of security, not a random guy who happened to bring his gun to the service. Also, the gunman had already killed two people before being stopped. With some very basic gun laws, it's very likely that the gunman wouldn't have been able to get a gun in the first place, while the old man who saved the day would likely still have his.
In a nightclub, if a person starts shooting, it doesn't matter if other people have guns, nightclubs are too crowded to get any kind of accuracy. A "good guy with a gun" who actually takes a shot in a nightclub will more than likely end up hitting another innocent person.
-
26 minutes ago, Jotari said:
Again I don't think many countries are being different in that regard. There are big economic repercussions to those decisions (closing borders also means closing imports and exports which have massive consequences for the economy) and I think most countries are aware of that and are putting it off until the virus is an apparant threat. Some countries like Taiwan are acting quicker (and bloody Kiribati, I was refused entry on a trip I booked ten months ago, still pretty salty about it) but that seems like the outlier. For the most part the pattern seems to be the same. Put it off until the problem is guaranteed and then ease slowly into a quarantine.
It basically comes down to how quickly they were on top of the problem. Some governments went all in on it immediately, while others waited for it to spread thoroughly before admitting it was a problem and doing anything about it. Slower responses lead to a wider outbreaks.
-
@Jason-SilverStarApple I'll wait to see what happens in the thread you made before responding. If the mods keep it closed, I'll respond in the US Politics thread. Hope you don't mind the delayed response, but continuing the discussion here would directly contradict @eclipse's post.
35 minutes ago, Jotari said:Do you have any examples towards this? Because most countries seem to be following very similar models with how they're dealing with it. Namely restricting travel from infected areas, encouraging selfisolation, shutting down most businesses and public gatherings and then a border shut down. With the exception of Iran (still trying to figure out why they got hit so hard and the surrounding regions didn't), the spread seems more based on the frequency of international travel destinations given how Africa is almost completely unaffected.
It's mostly about how some countries responded with immediate action (testing, closures, etc), while others acted like it wasn't an issue (little or no testing, downplaying the impacts). This is deliberate in an effort to seem like there's no problem, that they've got it all under control, and that they wouldn't have to do the hard but necessary actions like closing schools and businesses. Basically, it's that sort of "tough guy" ineffectual leadership.
Here's a timeline for COVID-19 events in Iran, if that helps
-
22 minutes ago, eclipse said:
I made Haar and Heath into something competent, and I think Cormag/Rutger are doable, too. You're free to complain, though all it tells me is that you're not invested enough to figure out how to make a unit shine. So fix it or stop complaining.
Rutger's one of my best units. Considering all of these units can, with time, become free +10 units with either great stats/BST or (eventual) weapon refines, they're really great. I'll gladly take my favorites as Grail units since it means as long as I keep playing, they'll eventually be +10.
USA Gun Rights/Gun Control Discussion Thread
in Serious Discussion
Posted
The systemic problems aren't being caused by people not liking the police. Even if everyone gave absolute, unbending love to every last police officer, we'd still have the same problems.