Blackstone
Brigadier
I standby the term "accept" when we talk about Americans' general treatment of difference races, because my over four decades of life experience in the US tells me today, the term acceptance is closer in reality than tolerance.
News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Maybe some say it is accept and some say it is tolerate, but it is not "embrace" and it is not "champion" (verb). Depending on the level of their self-value, to some, being tolerated or accepted may seem like a gift as it is. Not to others; most importantly, not to champions.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
It's all of the above. From race "champions" which are fewest in number, to a larger number of Americans who genuinely "embrace" different races, to the majority of Americans who "accept" others, to some who only "tolerates," and then a very few who are racists.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
That's not what I meant. I meant how people of foreign ethnic background would rate their perceived level of welcome. Most would say accepted or tolerated but many would they they feel discriminated. Very VERY few would say they feel embraced or championed by American society (except beautiful women, but they are being embraced not for their ethnicity LOL). Racism is sometimes unintentional as well; an American may feel that he is celebrating someone else's race but to that person, it could feel like mockery, so there is that level of mis-translation between intent and result that could further confound the complexities between actual and perceived racism.
And also I would reiterate once again, the difference between superficial and deep-seated sentiment. When you said that very few are racist, perhaps that is true on a superficial level in the sense that you don't often meet people who are openly racist to you, but they are being held back by 1. fear of legal issues and 2. cultural norms and civility. That does not mean that deep down, when they're talking with their close trusted friends at exclusive gatherings (that are often all white in a subtly racist way), they don't express to each other how they dislike seeing too many of "you" around. And as I said, they have the right to do that, and I say things to my close friends as well that would ruin my career if I said it at a presentation LOL. But the point I'm driving at is, that level of subtle, hidden racism can make someone feel unwanted and the existence of that level of racism is the difference between being embraced/championed and being tolerated/accepted.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
The biggest political difference between the PRC and the US is it isn't "treason" to want a different government or to protest peacefully over anything. The fact you think it is treason to peacefully subvert power from the government tells me either you're brainwashed by the Communist Party, or you haven't lived in a free country. Your claim China is "super free" is wrong on facts, as you know you're not free to peacefully protest to kick the CPC out of power.
Blackstone
Brigadier
You make arguments that can't be proven one way or the other. Who's to say the majority of Americans that oppose racism are merely "superficial?" Unless you could read minds, you can't possibly know that.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
The funniest thing about American thinking is that when other people disagree, Americans accuse others of being 1. brainwashed, 2. crazy/terrorist, 3. paid $0.50 to post (because they can't really think differently than the American way). This is the first time someone has said something that ignorant to me on SDF. Congratulations! I grew up since age 2 in NYC and received my graduate education in Georgia.
It is my free opinion that if your government is doing a fantastic job (as the most competent government in the world), and it is critically closing in on its main rival, then it should be illegal to attempt to subvert its power. That would likely cause turmoil and loss of the country's ability to immediately and aggressively pursue its national interest. If that is your desire, then it is treason. In wartime, the American government does not undergo election and martial law may be implemented for that same reason.
I stand by what I said. China, depending on who you are, can be super free. It is super free for those who have Chinese interests in mind. It is super free for those who have no desire to cause trouble. It is highly oppressive to those who wish to cause trouble and take away from China's national interest by crippling its government, which is the most competent on earth (all your words). That's exactly the way I like it. Enemies of the state should never be free to do what they wish to do. It is not super free for all people and I agree on that. So there is absolutely no need for you to keep saying that it's not super free for those who want to oppose the CCP. I know that and I love that.
De facto segregation is a widely-known phenomenon. When all white people hang out together because they're white, they form bonds from hanging out. Then they help each other more because they are pulled closer by both their similarities and their social connections. It's natural; it's not evil. It happens everywhere in every race. If you wanna pretend that none of that's happening just because it's not happening before your eyes with conversations that you can hear, that's your right to stick your head in a hole in the ground. But I don't wanna be a minority in a society where the majority mostly all support each other over me even if it is because of natural de facto segregation.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
antiterror13
Brigadier
unnecessary nasty comment
There are a lot of partial stories in the past few pages, admittedly with a lot of good points, so here's my two cents to try to complete the picture.
Or investing/consuming countries can help invest in and develop clean energy in manufacturing countries which is what's happening in a lot of cases. International, and intranational, carbon trading schemes are also meant to address that.
This is to make up for US corporations systemically cutting corners investing in American workers and poorer Americans, and cutting cost/investment in workers in general, while lining executive suite and large investor pockets instead. Using immigrant workers legal and illegal is just one more sleight of hand by US corporations turning private costs into public costs using and diluting the relatively high quality of life provided by public goods of being an American as part of the pay package. It's a lose-lose proposition for American workers and poorer Americans.
The innovations of the few are only possible because the vast majority of "useless" people contribute to providing a quality of life for everyone so that a few even have the opportunity to work hard, and get lucky, to pursue innovation for the benefit of everyone. That's the fundamental social contract everywhere. Try innovating when one has to worry about subsistence and competing with everyone else for subsistence.
Or investing/consuming countries can help invest in and develop clean energy in manufacturing countries which is what's happening in a lot of cases. International, and intranational, carbon trading schemes are also meant to address that.
This is to make up for US corporations systemically cutting corners investing in American workers and poorer Americans, and cutting cost/investment in workers in general, while lining executive suite and large investor pockets instead. Using immigrant workers legal and illegal is just one more sleight of hand by US corporations turning private costs into public costs using and diluting the relatively high quality of life provided by public goods of being an American as part of the pay package. It's a lose-lose proposition for American workers and poorer Americans.
The innovations of the few are only possible because the vast majority of "useless" people contribute to providing a quality of life for everyone so that a few even have the opportunity to work hard, and get lucky, to pursue innovation for the benefit of everyone. That's the fundamental social contract everywhere. Try innovating when one has to worry about subsistence and competing with everyone else for subsistence.