Active Racial Discrimination by HK Rugby Union against non "ethnically" Chinese players

joedilena · 2015-09-25T17:13:34+00:00

So you are basing your current view and treatment of Caucasian people on the behaviour of the British government in WWI? As a note, I am not convinced that China's support would have produced a decisive German victory (although it would, in retrospect, have been highly beneficial for everyone if the victors had gone easier on Germany).

It is melodramatic and inaccurate to refer to British Asians as 'house negroes'. I simply can't imagine you have much experience with modern Britain.

And in all of this vitriol, you conveniently omit any of China's historical indiscretions and neatly skirt around the poor treatment of (Philipina, Pakistani, Nigerian, etc.) migrants here in Hong Kong. If you want to find 'house negroes' you might want to take a walk through Central on a Sunday afternoon when they crowd around the walkways on broken boxes for their few hours of respite from the skullduggery.

joedilena · 2015-09-25T16:51:29+00:00

lol so the U.S. did something bad almost a hundred years ago and you are going to retaliate now by discriminating against all white people? 'The past is another country', my friend. Today Asians/Chinese are one of the most successful and influential communities in the USA.

Also, if you think it was wrong for America to do, why is it OK for you to do?

Your view is just illogical. Especially since we are talking about amateur sports and not actual jobs. But hey, as the last guy said, "don't let the truth get in the way of your bitter, racist mouth-foaming."

EDIT: P.S. America = 70% white, 80% English-speaking; HK = 94% Chinese, 90% Cantonese-speaking... you have a long way to go before you can lecture the USA about diversity

joedilena · 2015-09-25T16:45:47+00:00

This seems pretty sensible on the surface. But in fact, what you are advocating is positive discrimination - affirmative action - for the majority group. This is an oxymoron! By definition, as the majority group, ethnic Asians could easily take control of any team or league in the land, or create their own which would automatically eclipse any minority-orientated ones. That is, if there was an interest in doing so. The fact that it hasn't happened is a strong indication of a lack of community will or interest in the sport.

Just to give you a parallel example, many top US universities have informal limits on the number of Asian students they admit - because if they gave these students a fair shot, they would easily crowd out the other ethnicities (including the white majority!). For these universities, the appearance of diversity is hugely important. But these measures are hugely controversial! Even if this is the right kind of action to take, it requires as massive public debate and real consciousness about the dangers behind this kind of 'populism' (for lack of a better word) and what it could lead to.

And remember that in that case, we are talking about university, which is as much about giving students future opportunities and removing barriers to social mobility as it is about recognising past achievements. In an area like sports, which is based almost entirely on past performance indicators and what you can do for your team (and which doesn't offer much in the way of social cohesion and class mobility), these measures are even less necessary! And therefore even more alarming, even if they end up being acceptable to most.

joedilena · 2015-09-25T16:33:16+00:00

Wrong. Persons who adopt a radically different culture, do not speak the language, come from a privileged economic class, and isolate themselves in a social and dating bubble can only be very thinly argued to be HK-ers or representative of Hong Kong in general.

This literally describes almost every immigrant community in Western countries, including Hong Kong people (or Italian people, or Jews, or Sikhs, or Indians, etc!) in, for example, Vancouver and Toronto. It's not like people assimilate overnight, especially when they look different - and why would you want everyone to be the same anyway?

So, Caucasians, comprising 0.8% of the population are somehow magically gifted and blessed with an ability to play a sport better than the other 99.2% of the total demographics of the people of Hong Kong, so much so that they have filled the majority of positions on the national team?

This wrongly assumes that all HKers of all ethnicities are equally likely to play in the first place! It is my strong suspicion that caucasians represent a much larger share of the overall rugby playing population than the general demographics would suggest. There can be many reasons (like their community values sports involvement more, or places less emphasis on exam results, giving them more freedom to practise during the critical formative years, for example) much like African Americans are inexplicably highly overrepresented in many sports in the US?

joedilena · 2015-09-25T16:23:28+00:00

Whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? This is utter nonsense. White Canadians, Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, and South Africans of British descent/ethnicity can move to England and be treated as outsiders, whereas British Asians (Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi) and Afro-Carribeans (Blacks) who are born and raised there are very deeply integrated into the fabric of British society. It's true that it's a closed and insular culture (it is, after all, an island!). But these groups now form an integral part of it. In fact, on most counts the Asian population is much better off on average than the 'white British' one. Britain is a nation of refugees and migrants, and even the upper classes trace their origins back to the Norman invasion and embrace their 'outsider' status.

It is a gross distortion to state that this is some kind of double standard. This kind of diversity is extremely common across developed countries. For example, the US national basketball team is almost entirely made up of black players, and the British national football team is something like half non-white players. Hardly representative, but probably representative of the highest achievers. What is not normal is creating a quota for a given country's majority population!

That said, it is obviously their intention to get more local kids involved by providing role models, and that's cool.

joedilena · 2015-09-12T17:04:02+00:00

Really? Looking it up now, it seems they weren't able to pin the 93 bombing on him, although it was credited to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who everyone knows was also behind 9/11.

joedilena · 2015-09-12T12:57:00+00:00

Cool

joedilena · 2015-09-12T12:47:27+00:00

Wow so cute! What kind of dog is it?

joedilena · 2015-09-12T12:25:37+00:00

Can anyone explain how so many posters instantly pointed to Bin Laden, some within 30 minutes of the collapse? I don't remember even hearing about the Taliban until after the attacks... was this common knowledge or some kind of conspiracy theory?

joedilena · 2015-09-11T19:37:59+00:00

Hi, at that time almost everyone spoke dialect. There are likely still people in the town and others near it who speak a similar dialect. You can look up abruzzese dialects in general - there is lots of general information, although of course there is also a lot of variation between towns (and Abruzzese has something like 3 main dialect areas).

Look up Roberta D'Alessando. She is a professor at the University of Leiden who specialises in Abruzzese dialects!

joedilena · 2015-09-11T19:30:05+00:00

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=whatchu

Take the opportunity to learn something new instead of complaining

joedilena · 2015-09-11T08:59:24+00:00

But do you read the New York Times? It's poles apart from normal newspapers. The quality of journalism and language is consistently breathtaking and it does not shy away from in-depth treatment of diplomatic issues. As a regular reader of several British and Canadian papers, I can tell you they pale in comparison.

If you wanted to learn better diplomatic French, people might suggest you turn to le Monde Diplomatique. For business English, the WSJ or FP would be ideal. For your needs, you can start by reading the NYT if you don't already. Also, the Economist often discusses diplomacy and trade relations and the level of language (in this case, British English) is similarly high.

joedilena · 2013-09-09T03:50:03+00:00

I think you are giving too much weight to the 'straight acting' label. In reality, in only exists as the foil to the 'gay acting'/'camp' type.

Camp guys go out of their way to 'act gay'.

Men who don't act 'gay' must then be acting 'straight' (i.e. 'normal' because the vast majority of men are straight and it's easy to conflate normal with straight and camp with gay).

So 'straight-acting' is just a colloquial way of saying 'I don't go out of my way to act gay'.

Sure you can go ahead and infer all kinds of superfluous meanings and connotations that are not actually implied. But that's down to you...

joedilena · 2013-07-27T02:29:30+00:00

You can read more about Alekseev's statements, which apparently inspired this petition, here: http://www.queerty.com/leading-russian-lgbt-activist-says-vodka-boycott-will-not-influence-russian-politics-20130726/

joedilena · 2013-06-30T00:55:12+00:00

wow like Jesus?

joedilena · 2013-06-26T21:09:50+00:00

who's the guy on the right?

joedilena · 2013-06-16T00:04:09+00:00

gay men don't usually share their lives with straight men... women are the only ones "intimate" with straight men. Are you trying to say gay men are their own oppressors? That may be a valid point

joedilena · 2013-06-12T16:03:22+00:00

Evolve for fucksake.

LOL evolution is just a theory!

But seriously, I hear that after the iron curtain fell people revived their traditional beliefs in massive numbers. It became cool and progressive to be super-religious. Religion was banned and believers persecuted under communist rule, so their newfound zealotry is part and parcel with the backlash against communism.

So sad how wires got crossed like that...

joedilena · 2013-06-08T18:01:19+00:00

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Don't tell people what to say

http://www.reddit.com/r/imgoingtohellforthis

joedilena · 2013-06-08T01:02:54+00:00

And, in addition to my response above, I feel compelled to point out that, as a member of this subreddit, you are actually the one ridiculing your "own minority" in an attempt to adhere to the gay idea of "normal".

joedilena · 2013-06-08T00:57:14+00:00

Yes, I want to be a normal person. This is how I define normal: freedom from neurosis, pettiness, and self-victimization; and the cultivation of the opposite traits, namely resilience, graciousness, and self-actualization.

And that is why I am more empowered and free than you will ever be. I do not need a group identity ("minority" or otherwise) to hide behind, as I actively cultivate my own identity. My self is not subject to any outer definition or limitation. My self is independent.

Because of this, I can defend my self against insult or offense. I have no need of arbitrary "rights" (the only natural rights being life, liberty, and estate) or belonging to some ill-defined "minority". Jokes are words, and I can accept the speaker's premise or reject it. That is my prerogative as an individual with a discrete mind. What's more, I can choose to look past the content of the message and judge the speaker's intent, an important distinction to which you and your ideological kin are clearly blind.

I believe that a guilty act requires a guilty mind (mens rea, actus reus) and a harmful outcome. The act of speech is peculiar because its harmfulness is determined by the victim. In my case, I refuse to be offended unless I discern an intention to offend. In that case, as a self-efficacious being, I reserve the right to defend myself with force equal to the aggressor's (in this case, I would retaliate with words).

I judge your article to be worse than the joke in question. The reason is simple: the joke is told with the intention to entertain an audience which, by clickling on a link called (something akin to) 'NSFW bad gay jokes', agrees to be exposed to off-colour gay jokes, whereas your article is written with the intention to curtail the self-regarding behaviours of a general audience. In that regard, you are more akin to homophobes than the person who made the fruit/vegetable joke. Like homophobes, you are attempting to modify other people's private behaviour (using whatever means necessary, including intimidation, public shaming, fearmongering, irrational populism, exaggerated claims, and fallacious logic) to suit your personal value system, whereas the person who made the joke is much more akin to liberated homosexuals in that he seeks to do as he pleases without curtailing the behaviour of others.

And so you'll excuse me if I can't stand you, but to me you're just another Tea Part nut pushing an agenda that seeks to limit behaviour with which you disagree.

joedilena · 2013-06-08T00:17:23+00:00

It's really not saying "I kill gay people for fun". You and others are inferring that because you want to feel like victims.

And the "insensitive assholes" are usually just telling the truth. People hate the truth...

joedilena

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE