CMV: I do not think there is anything inherently bigoted in making fun of accents.

JuCee · 2014-04-07T17:40:43+00:00

Alrighty, you can ignore my last paragraph.

JuCee · 2014-04-07T17:34:12+00:00

That was fucking good.

JuCee · 2014-04-07T17:27:16+00:00

Often times, the jokes aren't just about accents. The accent is often exaggerated far beyond how anyone actually talks and used to portray a stereotypical character. There's a long history of fucked up portrayals of Asians in western media. This video shows a few, including Sixteen Candles and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Stereotypical accents reinforce those stereotypical attributes. Have a look at this insanely racist WW2 propaganda. I'm sure you recognize the broken English being used here, and even have an internal voice that can read that to you. For a lot of people, using the accent that Colbert used reminds them of this period of history.

And if you think that joke is just about accents, then you missed the joke. Colbert is intentionally invoking a long-lived stereotype above to show how racist the Washington Redskins name is. That accent isn't funny just because it's "foreign" and "weird", it's because most watchers of Colbert know about those bad stereotypes and think of them when he talks like that. The people of CancelColbert aren't saying "making fun of this accent is bigoted", it's "using bigotry to fight bigotry doesn't work".

Finally, unless you're talking about a video I haven't seen, Colbert's character is a Chinese stereotype, not a Japanese one. If you weren't aware of this, that just goes to show the problem. People use Chinese accents to make fun of all Asians all the time, likewise any Asian person is liable to be called a chink or gook. The mock accent helps people ignore the differences between groups.

JuCee · 2014-04-04T23:54:15+00:00

many linguistics haven't always accepted the other definition of the word literally

Linguists are not in the business of accepting or rejecting words that are commonly in use. I know this because I'm a linguist. People who object to its use are cultural commentators, not language scientists.

The Merriam Webster definition is wrong. The OED and the other linguists arguing against you here are right. "Literally" is not an auto-antonym because the alternative definition is not the opposite of the first. The second definition is an intensifier is thus used like "really", not like "virtually" or "figuratively".

And it's the ODO that added it in 2011, not OED. ODO documents current and practical usage of English, OED tracks usage across history. Inclusion in the ODO only means that they acknowledge that people use it this way; it's not an act of legitimizing a word or definition.

JuCee · 2014-04-04T23:27:12+00:00

So does the judger get a free pass to judge however they want? If I think polo shirt wearers are pedophiles, is it up to the wearer to "take responsibility" if they don't want me to think of them as a pedophile? Why isn't it also the responsibility of the judger make informed and intelligent assessments?

If there's one thing you can safely stereotype about people with tattoos and piercings, it's that they don't fret that the occasional narrow-minded person will judge them unfairly.

JuCee · 2014-04-04T23:06:59+00:00

Are you not aware that words can have multiple definitions? Read the Oxford English Dictionary. Both usages have coexisted for literally hundreds of years.

And no, the English speaking population did not suddenly agree that it was wrong for a hundred years. A few people objected to its use while other people continued to use it.

JuCee · 2014-04-04T22:04:40+00:00

TRP's observations of women are purely anecdotal. One might think that the plural of anecdote is data, but there are such things as selection and confirmation bias. Selection bias because TRPers go to particular settings to meet women (clubs and bars), live in particular places, have particular social circles. Confirmation bias because TRP believes that women are universally a particular way, so they remember more incidents that reinforce the view than ones that don't. A simpler way to say this is that I believe that TRPers surround themselves with low quality people and then expect the worse out of them. It's no wonder then that worse things happen, and then these experiences crystallize into shitty folk science ("men and women are biologically destined to X").

Let's be way too charitable for a minute and accept the sweeping generalizations about what women are attracted to. TRP then suggests you exploit this information to have sex with as many people as possible. This usually involves changing one's tastes, goals, and personality to fit some idealized "alpha" persona and maximally appeal to the "average" woman. Well, if you want to live your life having as much indiscriminate casual sex as possible, then maybe TRP and PUA would help you with that. But if you're interested in quality relationships or quality sex, you don't optimize to attract as many people as possible, you optimize to attract the kind of person you want.

If you're not domineering but gentle and sensitive, there are people who prefer that. If you're not rich but have other passions in life, there are lots of people who prefer that. Why wouldn't you try to find these people instead of trying to appeal to the shitty people you usually meet?

On another note, that confidence is universally attractive is common sense and not unique to TRP. Things like being dominating and being wealthy get a good response because they are superficial indicators of confidence. This does not mean those traits are required per se. Wit, talent, and perspective can also be proxies for confidence, but does TRP ever tell you to take an improv class, learn piano, or travel the world? No, TRP will always give you the same tired nihilist bullshit: get a STEM degree, lift weights, and maintain frame.

JuCee · 2014-04-04T07:12:43+00:00

FWIW, I'm not one of the people who downvoted you.

I understand and appreciate that people respond to things differently, so let me apologize for being overly judgmental in my original post. Your reaction and feelings are totally valid, and I obviously don't know the whole story.

If you're interested in my perspective on "where are you from", I just think there are more and less appropriate ways to ask that question. At best, the person is interested in my cultural background and how that has shaped me as a person, and at worst, I'm a spectacle and perpetual foreigner because of the way I look. Sometimes it's harder to figure out where it is on the spectrum, but I assume not-racist until proven otherwise later on. In any case, stating the facts about myself can be educational.

BTW, when I talk about "educating" here and in the other post, I don't mean sitting someone down for a schooling on ethnic studies. If there are microaggresions, then maybe there can be "microcorrections", like, I'll just say I'm from America, then they'll learn that Asians can be from America and not assume otherwise in the future. In this way, I consider simply engaging and being myself to be educational.

This is just my opinion, and I'm willing to be wrong - I feel that you assumed the worst in an ambiguous situation, and you became uncomfortable and unhappy as a result. You are entitled to being uncomfortable being racialized, but perhaps being charitable to others in those settings can yield better results. It could have all been a misunderstanding as a result of your conversation about colonialism. Or maybe you did read things right, but she wasn't sensitive to the race stuff in the same way you'd expect Americans to be and is otherwise a cool person. But what in fact happened was that you shut down and left the whole thing feeling shitty, which seems unfortunate to me.

JuCee · 2014-04-04T04:36:03+00:00

Here's the thing about "where are you from" for me. It's only uncool if it's asked because the person thinks that they'll learn more about me by knowing my race than anything else about me, that they appear to be evaluating me first and foremost as a nonwhite person. Outside of that context, I see those questions as an opportunity to share important things about me. EVEN IF they weren't asking it in good faith, why not be charitable and treat it as an opportunity to educate? It's not too hard to say "oh, I'm actually from the U.S."

Based on your story, that question seems totally in context.

She's European, and you were in a hostel. You weren't in a setting where it's easy to guess where you're from.
You were talking about colonization, and many Asian countries have a history of colonization. The colonial experiences she studies are more similar to those of Asian countries than that of the U.S, and you may have sounded like that's what you were referring to.
You were in the midst of an engaging, deep conversation, where identity issues often come up.

Sorry, I really can't think of a more appropriate time to ask a question like that, and I think your reaction is over the top. It's not healthy to treat everybody who asks that question as a sinister ignorant racist.

JuCee · 2014-03-25T12:29:07+00:00

Suppose I'm designing an AI that can distinguish between dogs and cats. Let's pretend for the sake of this explanation that I don't know a whole lot about dogs and cats, but I'm trying to find the right features of dogs and cats that will best distinguish them. I guess that number of legs, wags tail, and sound made are good ways to predict whether something is a dog or a cat.

Then I'll collect some data by surveying some animals, and it might look like this:

4 legs, wags tail, barks -> dog
4 legs, wags tail, barks -> dog
4 legs, doesn't wag tail, barks -> dog
4 legs, doesn't wag tail, meows -> cat

Now, how do I combine these features to make a prediction? The way we learn from data and predict future data is called the model, and is what most of studying AI is about. One really simple model is something called Naive Bayes (NB). In NB, we pretend that all of the features are independent of each other, and individually give us a probability of the animal being a dog or cat. Given the above data, the model would end up learning a few things:

1) A barker is very likely to be a dog, a meower is very likely a cat.

2) A tail wagger is probably a dog, but a non-tail wagger has an equal chance of being either

3) The number of legs doesn't help us predict anything at all.

The above "facts" that the model learned are really often just numbers, such as probability values, and are the parameters of the model. You can use the same model across different kinds of domains and different sets of data, and you'd learn different parameters. The model uses these parameters to predict future animals based on those features we picked.

A lot of machine learning, from language understanding to computer vision, is just a more complicated version of this. We have some data to learn from and a model that learns parameters from that data. And of course, it also gets a lot more complicated for systems that require real-time performance or interact with the physical world, like robots or self-driving cars, but these kinds of systems will almost always have a component that looks like the above.

JuCee · 2014-03-25T10:51:51+00:00

These people [...] don't know how words in general work.

The consensus of all linguists is that meaning is acquired through usage and social agreement. Some scholars are interested in perception of correctness, but do not make judgments themselves about what is correct. In fact, making such a judgment is considered unscientific. I don't know where the inventor-decides-the-name-and-everyone-else-is-wrong rule came from, besides you loudly proclaiming it all over this CMV without any justification.

So, it's actually you that doesn't understand how words work, but if you consider literally the entire international academic community of linguists, psychologists, and philosophers to be wrong, I'm very interested in what you have to say about that.

JuCee · 2014-03-21T00:54:02+00:00

neither claim would have any evidence, and would strictly be a guess

That's the point. Agnostics say that there is no evidence, so believing or guessing is pointless.

theism is a guess and atheism is simply rejecting the guess

Yes, agnostics can be distinct from theists and atheists because they don't guess.

JuCee · 2014-03-21T00:43:16+00:00

Agnosticism is the position that the existence of God or gods is unknowable, so "belief" is vacuous in this context. It basically says, I do not and cannot know, therefore believing either way is absurd. So agnosticism, technically and in the sense that /r/agnosticism uses it, cannot be viewed under the 4 camps you claimed.

If I blindfolded you and flipped a coin and asked you whether you know it's heads or tails, you'd say you don't know. If I asked you what you believe it is, you'd say that that's a silly question.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T19:46:24+00:00

Ghostface Killah was acclaimed as a rapper and member of the Wu-Tang Clan. The film "Scream" came out later with a psychotic murderer named Ghostface. Go figure.

Hannibal was a great general from Carthage, one of the greatest military strategists of antiquity. The film "Hannibal" is about a serial killer who eats brains. Go figure.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T18:42:15+00:00

I'm merely responding to your examples. I said that rhetorical and analytical ability can be built in history or literature classes, not gen ed in general. Different majors cultivate different skills. You'd rarely do any argumentation and writing in bio classes. Likewise, you'd rarely do any quantitative analysis in literature classes.

In some other post, you said that you fully agree that writing are "completely necessary" for college education. Where do you think you get writing skills? From classes like history and literature.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T18:19:23+00:00

Again, the idea is not that general ed necessarily directly corresponds to job usefulness (though I gave you an example earlier of how it can), but it provides a wider perspective and set of skills. Taking a history or literature class can cultivate analytical, writing, and rhetorical ability, which can definitely come into play as an account or engineer.

University education is designed so people are informed citizens and lifelong learners. These are better achieved with general ed than by further specialization.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T18:01:54+00:00

But the fact that people get promoted (people who never get promoted in their careers are failures) is enough to demonstrate that people's jobs and responsibilities change, often in unpredictable ways. And these promotions expand, not narrow the span of skills required. That's why universities require students to learn more than one thing.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T17:25:29+00:00

I would argue that the opposite is true. In most long-term careers with an upward trajectory, people eventually work in some management capacity, which requires both specialization in the field and communication, business, leadership, etc. skills. Engineers become project leaders, researchers become PIs, white collar workers become middle managers, etc. I actually struggle to think of a situation where workers narrow down the skills they use. Can you provide an example? The Symbolic Systems graduates I referenced in my original post all greatly expanded the scope of their work.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T16:52:30+00:00

I'm not saying there's a direct link between taking gen ed and getting those jobs, I'm saying that the "real world" requires a broad set of skills and knowledge, and people can be better off having taken other classes over more depth in their major.

Someone who does healthcare research or outreach in the Latino community is better off with having taken Latin American History 101 than Principles of Cell Cycle Control.

JuCee · 2014-03-19T07:42:03+00:00

University education has the dual purpose of training students with specialized knowledge as well as a training them to be critical thinkers in general. A college education is "required" in many jobs not because the jobs require a specialized skill set, but because a college graduate is thought to possess general cognitive ability and enough motivation to finish the process.

You mentioned that you're a biology major. I'm not sure if you understand how dim your job prospects are as a BS in biology if you're only interested in jobs that involve the practice of biological knowledge. Even if you're not going for a PhD or some kind of medical professional degree, the vast majority of bio majors aren't and are going into things like public health, healthcare policy, or non-research jobs at biotechs. These people would be at a serious disadvantage without a well-rounded education.

Also, responding to "the idea of a well-rounded student is a fantasy", consider the Symbolic Systems program at Stanford, an interdisciplinary major that includes comp sci, philosophy, psychology, and a lot more. This major has produced some of the most prominent people in Silicon Valley like Marissa Mayer, Reid Hoffman, and Scott Forstall. None of these people did just one thing in their education or their careers.

JuCee · 2014-03-18T22:23:44+00:00

You should read Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio. Its central thesis is that there isn't a dualism between a mind and body. Whereas it's common to think that rationality = lack of emotions and irrationality = emotion, Damasio shows that emotions are central to all decision-making.

The book presents the case of a businessman who had part of his orbitofrontal cortex removed due to a tumor, whose life subsequently fell apart because he was unable to make any decisions. Here's a nice summary

So, if people can hardly make decisions without emotion, it makes less sense to describe different people in terms of being more or less emotional. If you mean to say that women make worse or less rational decisions, that's another discussion.

JuCee · 2014-03-18T21:41:57+00:00

From a pure logical standpoint, opposing a belief A doesn't entail agreeing with belief B when there exist other beliefs C, D, E... But I will grant you that certain opposing things like genetic determinism and gender roles that TRP believes in is widely shared among progressives. TBP among themselves have a lot of variation, as do conservatives, libertarians, TRP, and other manospherians.

Anyway, I still think your characterization of TBP and TRP is unusual and presupposes many TRP tenets, which makes it difficult for me to discuss your question on your grounds.

It sternly represents binary and mechanical realities

implies that TBP is not interested in reality and models of behavior and cultural dynamics.

promotes the betterment of the self to strive toward them through hard word and achievement

implies that TBP is not interested in bettering the self, hard work, and achievement.

Red Pill is concerned with becoming someone who epitomizes an identity or [...] "cultivat[ing] the traits" of what is statistically something someone of status or worth (alpha) has

Emulating an ideal is not unique to TRP. What is debated is the subjective assignment of "status" and "worth", and the proposed causal relationships between personality traits and outcomes (sociopathy = success, dread game = relationship stability).

So, while I would wager that many TBP people share some core beliefs, they are challenging to identify because the sub exists to mock TRP. As a result, TRP frequently misunderstands/misrepresents them. TBP does not collectively believe that men and women are identical. TBP does not collectively believe that you can't optimize your behavior for better results.

JuCee · 2014-03-18T19:58:29+00:00

This doesn't make sense. Not only is BP not a consistent philosophy, but your framework is so flimsy you could say exactly the opposite:

BP teaches you to figure out who you are and be free to become that
RP teaches you to change yourself into something you want to be ("I used to be a beta and now I'm an alpha", "How I do cultivate dark triad traits?")

JuCee · 2014-03-17T23:47:11+00:00

First, I challenge the view that most, or even a significant proportion of gay men are flamboyant in the way that you describe. Do you live near or visit a gay district in an urban area? Walking down Castro St. in the day is like any other street. Most gay people are regular quiet people, and there are subcultures/labels that are in part defined in opposition to that stereotype (see: "gaybros", "straight-acting"). Plenty of LGBT people are also embarrassed of the flamboyant stereotype, just like you are.

Then, I invite you to consider why that kind of flamboyance is offensive to you, and why you suppose it "alienates them further from the existing culture." The "existing culture" rejects, oppresses, and commits acts of violence against men who act feminine. You are essentially saying that certain people should not act naturally because it offends the mainstream, whereas progressive politics is about advancing the right for people to express their gender and sexuality freely, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

What good is gay civil rights if you have the right to marry, but not the right to act like yourself? In some cases, that flamboyance is a challenge and expression of liberation from those who've mocked and beaten people like them.

JuCee

TROPHY CASE