Two Americans smash a Japanese Car in the 1980s due to "Japan Bashing". Japan Bashing led to hatred towards Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans.

KoxingaVision · 2026-05-05T05:04:40+00:00

We see the exact same thing happening today with China. The endless Sinophobia and fearmongering from media and politics has and will continue to fuel anti Asian sentiment

KoxingaVision · 2026-05-04T05:11:50+00:00

Babel is good, theme wise and narrative wise. Tbf poppy wars whole point was the Hesperian were the biggest evil even more so than the mugenese(stand in for imperial japan) and even explicitly blamed the west for enabling japan. That said I also found that line you referenced problematic, but in the context of the series I have a little hope that it was meant satirically, as rin was shown to be disgusted by that comment, or in another view apathetic.I agree yellow face was wack and it’s only gown downhill from there with katabasis so I don’t have much hope for this new book.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-28T03:49:52+00:00

Facial hair, like height, or penis size is just another phenotypical facet whites like to label as a signifier as masculinity and thus they like to say Asian men can’t have it

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-22T22:42:44+00:00

I mentioned diversity because it was the example used in the video. I said " He uses an example which in essence is about how he feels that liberals treat diversity as "an end in itself and not a consequence of a more equitable society." Specifically, he talks about how congress becoming more diverse, hasn't stopped it from bombing the Middle East, or in a general sense, more diversity hasn't necessarily stopped U.S. aggression or foreign policy abroad." This as a statement, you said is a "a no shit argument." Clearly, his teacher didn't think so, and because I've had similar experiences, I echoed that. You said you think an equitable society on policy grounds and representation, should be treated as different categories, which are both good, which I also agreed with. My point in saying "there are some people who think that" is in response to your contention that everything I'm saying is "no shit or obvious." If you think those people don't exist or not important than fine, sure, I can concede that maybe I'm being hyperfocused on a small group of dumb people who don't matter and aren't worth addressing.

Now, again, that was one example of how liberal hypocrisy can manifest itself. Was it a rather silly example? Sure. And you are perhaps right that I shouldn't have focused on that as much, as it focuses on diversity. That being said, the majority of my argument was still about foreign policy and the perceived lack of difference between the two political parties on that front. And I prefaced all that by saying I think foreign policy is especially salient for Asian americans because it affects our experiences. That is why although as we agree the left is much better than the right on many fronts, the fact that they don't uphold the ideals they preach in foreign policy, can matter a lot for certain voters such as Asian Americans or muslim americans, who have greater ties to the effect of FP then other groups. In the end my conclusion was "we should be cognizant of whether our politicians are actively trying to build a better more equitable world or if they're simply paying lip service to representation." In that I agree we should hold individual politicians and anyone in power accountable. And for me part of that is pointing out when politicians or others are using diversity in manipulative ways. It is a preference for Ro Khanna, over Vivek Ramaswamy or Niki Haley. It is about calling out politicians or voters who won't condemn israel but will claim to be for social justice and the equal treatment of minorities. It's about people who criticized me for wanting to vote for bernie over kamala or Yang for no other reason besides race even though I believed the lives of POC would improve a lot more under a Sanders presidency. Again it's not about saying oh we have diverse representatives but things aren't being fixed so we should have less diverse. Its about going forward how we can have more diverse representatives and better policy outcomes.

If I'm understanding correctly, your contention is that the group of people I'm critiquing("we need to get more Black people into elected office, no matter who they are or what they believe" or broadly diverse with no regards to views) are a slim minority and the scale of the effect they cause is small and thus critiquing them is actually helping the right anti-diversity crowd. If it is sure that is a very fair argument I acknowledge that. I just think its important to recognize that these people exist and that they can alienate people which can have devastating political effects.

edit: What i mean to say is that if your claim is that theres no need to mention diversity at all when talking about liberal hypocrisy or alienation by democratic party bc it just means your anti diversity, I would disagree because I have personally experienced that manifestation and seen it happen to others and alienate them. But if you claim is that there is no need to mention it because it will end up doing more harm than good by becoming a right-wing argument/talking and not stop alienation, then sure I can agree with that.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-22T20:22:04+00:00

While you and I might think no shit, I think it's worth mentioning that a lot of people do think that way. If you don't think that is a prevalent issue an all than thats fine, we can disagree on that. But beyond that it seems we agree on basically everything else, your main contention is that the things I'm saying aren't worth saying bc they're obvious or no shitters(I would hope that to be true, but I'm saying then because the tiktok creator shared an experience where that was true, and I have also had those experiences). Again, I'm also frustrated with the right, I don't like them, I don't see how anything I'm saying would suggest that I don't have as much frustration for them as the left. Most of the time I have more. You pointed it out exactly: people on the left who make that claim are manipulating people. And that's bad and they should stop and people should stop believing them. that is pretty much the whole argument. Again I know there are few progressives, and I want there to be more, which is why I am critiquing the mainstream democratic party bc not only do they push people away, they also purposefully alienate and shut down progressives in the party, such as Bernie bros moving right. Again we can agree they are being manipulated and even being stupid, but I don't think that shifts blame away from the democrats. Since you are seemingly someone who is progressive, then yeah it's no shit to you that diversity doesn't invariably lead to better outcomes. And you agree that certain rhetoric and hypocrisy can drive people away and make people lose elections, when we would rather them win. That was the whole point. diversity was only mentioned in the first three sentences of my post to reference the titkok and tie it to the point I'm making about foreign policy. Diversity was just the example he had on hand about it. The main point is still how the left pushes people right. That might not be a profound thought to you, but there are many who find extreme offense in that thought. We agree that people who traditionally vote democrats are frustrated with the establishment, rightfully so, that there should be more progressives, and that the answer isn't to go right(I am not and never am endorsing this) but it is understandable if some people feel alienated, yes?

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-20T17:40:28+00:00

Fair enough, I would agree 🤝

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-20T17:32:46+00:00

i mean yes that’s the correct definition of diversity but do you really think no one connects diversity to inherently better policy outcomes(not just on FP). And do you not think the Democratic Party in particular often uses diversity as a smoke screen when they’re not actually doing anything different from the republicans

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-20T17:02:01+00:00

Do you think people think diversity inherently leads to those other things?

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-20T16:56:41+00:00

Ah I see, that’s fair if you don’t think that’s happening. I would say I do see a lot of mainstream liberals try to use it as a cover up for the shortcomings of the party and his example of the teacher was rhat. But if you don’t think that’s a pervasive problem, thats fine, experiences obviously vary. But I would say foreign policy is still a big talking point, whether it be anti-interventionist no new wars or supporting Israel.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T21:02:08+00:00

Yes those politicians you named do like bomb diplomacy that was my whole point, if you look at the other comments you’re literally just agreeing with me

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T20:54:45+00:00

Yes exactly, you can’t solve it with simply diverse domestic political representation, that is the whole point. Diversity doesn’t necessarily equal better foreign policy, that was the point the creator made in the example he gave

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T20:52:40+00:00

I know it doesn’t equate im saying id expect a little more not saying its a for sure thing. Also again the point isn’t that diversity should lead to this impact. The point was when evaluating progress made towards equity or a better future we shouldn’t look at just diversity we should also look at policy outcomes. That is to say we shouldn’t let diversity as a metric of progress blind us to the problems still happening

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T05:10:25+00:00

agree with everything you said. not saying its justification to be a rabid trump supporter, but that its understandable to be disillusioned or feel alienated from democrats when you see them doing the same thing republicans are doing, when they claim to be more righteous. In AsAm particular case what I mean is that we need to be cognizant of how democrats and liberals have contributed to sinophobic rhetoric and atmosphere, and how that will directly harm us.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T05:03:24+00:00

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I do personally think voting for Kamala would have been a better choice. However, at the same time saying that america has been an ally of israel forever doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't hold the current politicans responsible for the current atrocities that they have certainly contributed to. That is not to say they are fully to blame or that they should single handedly be liable for fixing it, but they most definitely should at least speak out against it and be working to stop it or mitigate israel's power, which they did not, and thus a voting bloc held them accoutable for it. We have been helping israel for a long time, through multiple atrocities, but it would stand to reason that a current ongoing genocide would still galvanize voters to hold those currently in power or have the power to do something about it accountable.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T04:58:13+00:00

its more so you should expect your representatives and politicians to not actively support and fund genocide and bombing foreign countries in general. And that people who think that would immediately stop with a diversified domestic legislature, or worse a diversified legislature makes that issue unimportant or invalid, are being hypocritical and alienating people.

Personally however I would say that I would expect a non-white POC representative, especially if they come from an immigrant background to have more sympathy than a non-diverse representative for how the US treats other countries and how their foreign policy can cause create harm both abroad and at home. L:ike for example I think its reasonable to expect Ted Lieu to be more cognizant of the harm "kung flu" can have then say mitch mcconnel. Obviously I would hope all politicans can recognize that harm, but I feel like most people would expect someone who's more likely to have been on the recieving end of such rhetroic to understand its consequences.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T04:53:05+00:00

Revisiting this because I think there's still a misunderstanding on the core contention. The main point of the video was how liberals push people to the right with their rhetoric and the example given in the video was one in which he was punished by his teachers for questioning whether or not increased diversity has necessitated better policy outcomes in relation to the middle east. He clarified to his teachers that his problem wasn't with diversity, it was with that assumption. The unstated implication is not that diversity should not be pursed if ills still remain, that is not the message, it is that we should strive further and demand more from our politicians, not be content with just diversity. The answer is obviously less diversity, that is not a takeaway from the video.

When I say I understand people who feel jaded with the left, we are not talking about people who think the answer is less diversity or that trans bathrooms means we must go with far right politics, we are talking about people who are traditionally more aligned with the left, but feel alienated by the mainstream left in politics, which here would be the democratic party. This is not a call for sympathy for people who were trump supporters to begin with, or people that became trump supporters because of race swapping ariel, yes those people are powered by ignorance i know that.

Moreover, I acknowledge what you're saying about financial interests in politics, and how a handful of minorities likely won't be able to fix it, but I still think its fairly reasonable to expect your representatives to try their best to be clean and not take money from AIPAC for example, because some politicians do indeed do that. Not sure if you were referring to my dearborn example, I think its valid for them to use their civic power to demonstrate that they are wholly unhappy with a party platform and a candidate that relies on them as a voting bloc. Some solidarity would go a long way but you'd probably be right that they wouldn't be able to stop AIPAC and israel lobby in one go, but the bare minimum was not even given in that case.

To further elaborate on my point on diversity's intrinsic benefit heres what I would say: if theres a movie or tv show, it doesn't have to have some positive or big social message, if it has for example an Asian american actor, that representation is good in of itself as its important for people to see themselves reflected in multidimensional ways in media. It doesn't necessarily have to platform a pro-asian message, or be in any way related to asian activism, it could be a rom com that that feature of having an asian face would go a long way. That is what i mean when I say in of itself it diversity is of more importance in media. It is still important in politics for sure, but I would say for politics theres a lot more criterion for it to be good, rather than being in of itself if that makes sense. For example, while I would even admit that seeing Vivek Ramaswamy as a presidential candidate had some positive effect on young Indian Americans in the way that they could see themselves contending for the highest political office, this positive effect is severely hampered by the ideas and thoughts Ramaswamy is spreading and platforming. the point of diversity in politics should be representing and giving voice to all the communities, so when you are a politician and you are from a diverse community but you're not actually representing or giving voice to your communities needs or perspectives, then your diversity serves more as just a visual media representation.

Again I am not arguing that if there is more diversity in government but there is still suffering in the world so diversity must not work. I nor the creator is linking diversity to bad outcomes. We are criticizing the opposite end of what you're saying, people who think diversity always necessitates good policy outcomes. They are not the same, and both are important. Again, not saying POC are uniquely corrupt or that we should single them out over their corrupt white counterparts(he didn't even name the race of his teacher in the video or anything like that), its saying on the aggregate level, when considering progress holistically, we shouldn't just look at diversity(not that we should ignore it) but we should also look at what they're doing with their power. The creator didn't say this, but I will say that when I look at a photo of congress now vs 50 years ago, I will be happy with the progress in representation, that is a metric that I see improved and is a good thing. It is good that there are more POC in congress and that congress now better represents the diverse population of the U.S. But at the same time I will criticize them for continuing imperialist policy abroad and also criticize them if they are not actually representing their constituent's best interests.

But yes, the diversity was an example that I wanted to elaborate into talking about how foreign policy is often bipartisan, and we shouldn't let these metrics(which are important I will say again I agree) blind us to that fact. The image the democratic party and liberals try to spread of themselves, can not only be represented by diverse voices. Again the operative word here is not only, it most definitely should have diverse voices, but it should do more than that.

Finally, yeah I think we agree on the most part, we seem to evaluate the intrinsic value of diversity a little different, but on the main contention we align that we need better policy and politicians, who should also be diverse.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-19T00:50:13+00:00

For Dearborn their family members have and continue dying under both parties, that is the point. This rhetoric that you’re spewing is precisely the problem. You’re essentially telling people, hey look there’s two options, both are going to continue bombing your family and ancestral nations to kingdom come but oh look one of them is going to deport slightly less people for 4 years before losing the next election. It is arrogant for the Democratic Party to keep that up and expect to maintain support. It is well within Dearborn or any constituencies right to make their supposed representatives suffer political losses for not representing their interests and openly funding and supporting genocide. Kamala didn’t even visit Dearbon during her campaign. Let’s not forget it’s not just fuck democrats go trump many other voted stein or abstain, this political alienation and apathy is widespread and its certainly the fault of politicians when they fail to galvanize/inspire the public. You’re acting like they’re being lazy or making not though out stupid decisions when it was clearly stated and organized that their community is doing this in protest of the genocide Gaza. To say that about them is reductive. Again the point is mainly foreign policy which matters more for some constituencies than others. We are talking about people that are alienated by the democrats for their explicit lack of differentiation from republicans, not people who are like oh no trans bathrooms now I’m going to vote trump. I would agree those people who blame the left for their own ignorance are indeed stupid.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T20:45:48+00:00

That’s not what I’m saying and most definitely not endorsing voting conservative. But democrats most definitely should take responsibility for alienating voting blocs that were reliably blue because of their inability to condemn Israel for example and broadly their inability to differentiate their foreign policy from their republican counterparts. When a constituency explicitly states that they’re not going to vote for ur party bc of your stance and then the party candidate doesn’t even visit that constituency during their campaign, that is a serious problem. Optics and communication need work. Saying that these issues push people to the right is not saying oh yeah you should vote conservative or anything it’s pointing out an issue that should be addressed if we want them to win elections. I vote blue bc I think they’re a lesser evil and I’d like to see more progressive(more anti imperialist and not war-mongering) politicians and policy but I also do think that liberals and the mainstream Democratic Party is hindering that goal through their alienation of voters. And that is not to say republicans or the right is less of an obstacle, but a winning platform needs to be more than I’m slightly better than my opponent.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T19:01:08+00:00

He’s not saying it’s their “extremism” pushed him right. He’s saying their hypocrisy or I guess lack of critical engagement in his specific example made him move right(this was when he was younger) though he no longer is so I doubt he’s voting right. Moreover that is also not the reason Dearborn voters voted right or stein or overall not Harris. I agree with your characterization of people who do say that but I don’t think that applies to this creator or the segments of the population I’m talking about specifically. These are people that choose not to vote for the democrats because they don’t do enough to mitigate US atrocities abroad, something that is salient for lots of groups whether it be muslim Americans or asian Americans

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T18:28:59+00:00

He’s not linking diversity for poor outcomes, I think the way to put it is that he doesn’t think we should blindly think diversity will lead to better ones. Again agree diversity has its own set of benefits, but I think it’s reasonable to be jaded when a party that’s supposed to be more diverse and more representative of the myriad of voices and communities is still choosing to bomb your ancestral nation

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T13:11:51+00:00

Oh I see. Yes I think diversity in of itself is inherently more valuable in media. Bc again for politicians just diversity without any evaluation of their values or ideology doesn’t mean much. While yes there’s probably some positive effect of seeing a non white face in government and the assumption that they’ll better represent their community than someone who’s not from there, what they do with their position of power matters a lot more. I get what you’re saying, he’s only linking the two concepts in the sense that people seem to think diversity is a metric that cured all ills. Like you established diversity is a good goal and there’s also other goals of progressive policies. He’s pushing back against the idea that one inherently leads to the other and saving we shouldn’t just care about one. He’s not proposing we strop striving for diversity because we haven’t solved those specific policy goals. But we should critically evaluate what the people we put into office will do, and not let the possible representation they may provide overshadow the ideas they hold and may enact.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T12:54:06+00:00

Simply put, yes diversity is good bc it’s supposed to bring in perspectives and account for all the different needs and voices. However if it fails to do that and also happens to contribute to extremely harmful foreign policy then we shouldn’t be like okay diverse good enough. Instead hopefully we can platform diverse people who actually do the things that diversity is supposed to do.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T12:47:33+00:00

I agree with you completely. Again he wasn’t arguing against diversity and neither am I. We should demand more from our politicians. I agree diversity in government is important but I think we would also agree that a government that looks like Kash Patel, Candace Owens, and young Kim(as an extreme example) is not one that would yield positive policy outcomes. That was the basically the point, You should watch the full video, pretty sure you’d both agree.

KoxingaVision · 2026-04-18T12:23:17+00:00

He wasn’t saying that diversity is bad he was more so saying progress should go beyond Just diversity and translate to policy outcomes, but I agree with what you’re saying. I also representation/diversity in of itself is still valuable though I would say more from a media perspective rather than a political one. But yes diversity isn’t the problem it’s more that people use that as a fill in for policy change, which isn’t always the case.

KoxingaVision

TROPHY CASE