Who gets minority/victim status? Miya Ponsetto scandal illustrates contradictions.

[NotHardUp1]

First, Ms. Ponsetto is a walking piece of crap. She attacked the teen in Soho and won't admit it was racially profiling, or that she even is accountable, and is trying to deflect it as dismissable because she's only 22. She's such a failure as a human it doesn't even warrant discussing her problems/crimes.

But, the media calling her a "Soho Karen" has raised a valid question about who gets to be an enabled victim under the blanket of minority, i.e., non-white.

Ponsetto argued that her Puerto Rican heritage means she is not white, therefore cannot be a "Karen" since it is a racist term to describe whites as privileged racists.

But, Latinas are inherently included with the SJW labels of minorities and therefore people of color, so there's a great sloppiness in drawing up lines and choosing victims and the guilty by profiling both.

Additionally, one article defined white privilege as the benefit afforded white supremacists, automatically equating any form of racist behavior with white supremacism, which is false, as white supremacists very explicitly champion a society of whites only, no Jews, and no multiculturalism. It's obvious that lots of majority population individuals benefit from white privilege but may not advocate anything of the sort in terms of wanting a whites only society, advocating white superiority, or other prejudiced political views.

The reason any of this matters is that the shotgun blasts of racist branding by some of the left is a direct contributor to the growing division in the country. Lots and lots of Americans in the middle know and admit that there are racial and class disparities that need to be corrected, but do not accept the willy nilly stigmatizing of every Caucasian that isn't a SJW on the front lines of a BLM march.

Until the dialogue becomes dialogue instead of just gratuitous accusations and insinuations, then the world won't get any better nor will we see social justice improve.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

That all sounds very reasonable to me. But what exactly is the incident? The names don't ring a bell.

 

[HoodedRat]

There's a straightforward hierarchy:

Black trumps white
Gay trumps straight
Trans trumps cis
Disabled trumps abled
Fat trumps thin
Female trumps male
Stupid trumps educated
Poor trumps rich
Immigrant trumps native-born
and
Islam trumps all other religions

Whoever can tick the most boxes gets maximum minority-victim status.

You also automatically get points deducted for being a straight white cis male.

 

[Charon]

Gay trumps straight

Gay and hot. Remember, the ugly gays don't count.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Aah, it's the woman who accused the teenage son of a musician of stealing the phone she forgot in her Uber?

It doesn't get more embarrassing than that, does it?

- - - Updated - - -

Gay and hot. Remember, the ugly gays don't count.

Hot trumps ugly. Goes for straight too. At least for straight women.

 

[NotHardUp1]

She is just a terrible person. I have the luxury of not caring if her assault was racially based or just from her being an ass, but she's culpable, and the family injured has every right to assume it was a racial accusation. I'm glad NY followed her to California and had her arrested. She is unrepentant. She should be pilloried.

 

[TickTockMan]

I have never seen where "Karen" means white. It is just usually white women that act that way. I have seen black and brown men and women called a "Karen" as well. Also white men, though some like to call men "Chad" or other name.

 

[NotHardUp1]

You might look through Hot Topics, as there is an overt use of it as an anti-white racist epithet. To say that it is obvious is an understatement.

In truth, arrogant and entitled behavior can come from anyone, any sex, and any race, but it serves a SJW purpose to lampoon whites. It's just as wrong as using an Uncle Tom.

 

[TickTockMan]

Just because people use it that way doesn't make it what it means.


Many people called themselves and their ilk patriots while doing terroristic things. Didn't make them patriots.

 

[Dominus]

There's a straightforward hierarchy:

Black trumps white
Gay trumps straight
Trans trumps cis
Disabled trumps abled
Fat trumps thin
Female trumps male
Stupid trumps educated
Poor trumps rich
Immigrant trumps native-born
and
Islam trumps all other religions

Whoever can tick the most boxes gets maximum minority-victim status.

You also automatically get points deducted for being a straight white cis male.

What about us asians? Where do we fit in this? How about gay asians?

 

[NotHardUp1]

What about us asians? Where do we fit in this? How about gay asians?

You don't get status unless you're disadvantaged. Most Americans see American Asians, or at least those formerly call Orientals, as superior to the general population. The stereotype is harder working, kids obey and do their homework and become successful with graduate degrees in high professions, and law abiding.

Of course, the Vietnamese in the current time are seen less prosperous as the operators and workers in nail salons, but I have never heard anyone refer to them by epithets or as an underclass.

You have more insight as an actual East Asian, but I can only go on how I have seen majority population Caucasians refer to the East Asians we have around us when they are not present. They have never been disparaged in my presence. If anything, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese were seen sympathetically for being in the path of wars between the superpowers.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Just because people use it that way doesn't make it what it means.

My point exactly.

However, it is used that way on this forum often.

The general population uses "gay" to mean "weak" or "lame" or "effeminate."

They do it for the same purpose as those using "Karen" to mean bitchy white woman of entitlement, for bigotry.

 

[Dominus]

You don't get status unless you're disadvantaged. Most Americans see American Asians, or at least those formerly call Orientals, as superior to the general population. The stereotype is harder working, kids obey and do their homework and become successful with graduate degrees in high professions, and law abiding.

Of course, the Vietnamese in the current time are seen less prosperous as the operators and workers in nail salons, but I have never heard anyone refer to them by epithets or as an underclass.

You have more insight as an actual East Asian, but I can only go on how I have seen majority population Caucasians refer to the East Asians we have around us when they are not present. They have never been disparaged in my presence. If anything, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese were seen sympathetically for being in the path of wars between the superpowers.

Well, that's good to know. I have often wondered what white people think about us when we're not around.

Trust me, we are disadvantaged but not in the way people typically associate how minorities are disadvantaged.

 

[NotHardUp1]

It goes both ways too. The Chinese were known for decades in the US to not allow their children to marry out of race. Whites have no lock on racism. We simply are in the majority so benefit from the inherently racist heritage that favored the majority.

Go to Europe and see if that has not been there heritage as well. In fact, now that East Europeans and Africans and Indians are flooding in the countries that have declining birth rates and need the workers, we're seeing racist reactionary forces rise.

In a way, they're actually behind us, as we had the issue first, not that there weren't Moors centuries ago in Europe, but they hardly were integrated societies. Watch an episode of Call the Midwives and see how oddly injecting a racially equal society in 1950's England looks. Nice intent, but silly in effect. A Passage to India is a bit more honest.

 

[Dominus]

It goes both ways too. The Chinese were known for decades in the US to not allow their children to marry out of race. Whites have no lock on racism. We simply are in the majority so benefit from the inherently racist heritage that favored the majority.

Go to Europe and see if that has not been there heritage as well. In fact, now that East Europeans and Africans and Indians are flooding in the countries that have declining birth rates and need the workers, we're seeing racist reactionary forces rise.

In a way, they're actually behind us, as we had the issue first, not that there weren't Moors centuries ago in Europe, but they hardly were integrated societies. Watch an episode of Call the Midwives and see how oddly injecting a racially equal society in 1950's England looks. Nice intent, but silly in effect. A Passage to India is a bit more honest.

Completely agree. A lot of Asians are racist as hell.

The disadvantage asians face has more to do with cultural behavior. Asians are typically raised to behave a certain way. The differences from western culture are just enough for misunderstandings to occur.

For example, asians are raised to not make eye contact when talking directly with a superior (like an older person, a boss, a cop, etc.). It is a sign of respect. In fact, it was ingrained in us to behave this way. White people, on the other hand, take this to mean we are not trust-worthy. One of the hardest things I had to recondition myself to do was make and maintain eye contact with people. Back when I was in the police academy, this actually came up a few times. The instructors accused me of lying when I failed to maintain eye contact.

Another example is in a meeting we listen more than talk. I have observed that in meetings white people tend to trip over themselves and each other to show-off their leadership skills. Us asians tend not to say anything unless it is important. Hence, even though asians are seen as successful we actually don't make it into leadership roles all that often because of the cultural misunderstanding that because we remain silent most of the time in meetings we must not have leadership skills or that we are bored.

I can give you plenty of other examples. But generally speaking, we are disadvantaged just not in the same way as how most people view minorities are disadvantaged. We are disadvantaged via some deep seated cultural differences with western values that are just enough to create distrusts.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

In spite of (or maybe because of?) the incendiary question in the title of this thread I'll bite.

The reason any of this matters is that the shotgun blasts of racist branding by some of the left

Oh, that's what this thread is actually about. Maybe we can have this discussion in CE&P?

...but do not accept the willy nilly stigmatizing of every Caucasian that isn't a SJW on the front lines of a BLM march.

Until the dialogue becomes dialogue instead of just gratuitous accusations and insinuations, then the world won't get any better nor will we see social justice improve.

Aren't social justice how-to's from the greener side of the fence kinda redundant? If I understand correctly, the most important part of any social movement is don't hurt the majority's feelings?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

You might look through Hot Topics, as there is an overt use of it as an anti-white racist epithet. To say that it is obvious is an understatement.

In truth, arrogant and entitled behavior can come from anyone, any sex, and any race, but it serves a SJW purpose to lampoon whites. It's just as wrong as using an Uncle Tom.

Uncle Tom has a much different historical context and is a whole different conversation than viral lingo which has never not once in American history been used to subjugate wypipo. There aren't enough civil suits from white men saying they lost a job or got mistreated because of their skin color. You really can't compare the black and white American experiences in any context, any attempt is futile as white supremacy is intricately woven into the Americam dna (literally and figuratively but I digress). See history books or the morning paper for reference.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Another example is in a meeting we listen more than talk. I have observed that in meetings white people tend to trip over themselves and each other to show-off their leadership skills. Us asians tend not to say anything unless it is important.

Oh, I think with "white people" you mean "white Americans." That kind of behaviour bothers a lot of Europeans too, from the strict Germans to the laidback Spaniards and the no-nonsense Scandinavians. Not to forget Australians.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

now that East Europeans and Africans and Indians are flooding in the countries that have declining birth rates and need the workers

Not so fast. Just because countries are enjoying a long overdue reduction in birth rates doesn't meen it "needs" to replace them. Europe is the world's most densely populated continent. We don't need to replace every car that leaves the traffic jam, and not every house that is demolished needs to be replaced by an apartment building. We are getting drinking water shortages in unlikely places. We can use some more breathing space.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Not so fast. Just because countries are enjoying a long overdue reduction in birth rates doesn't meen it "needs" to replace them. Europe is the world's most densely populated continent. We don't need to replace every car that leaves the traffic jam, and not every house that is demolished needs to be replaced by an apartment building. We are getting drinking water shortages in unlikely places. We can use some more breathing space.

You may feel that way about it, but the countries with wealth and declining birth rates are, as a group, tending to import low-paid groups from the regions I named, to do the dirty work.

So, whether they "need" more people or not, they are certainly choosing to have them in to do the low paid jobs. And, just as in America, it is often the working class people in the hiring countries who become reactionary. BTW, they still don't want to clean toilets or babysit or walk dogs for a living, but be damned if those foreigners are coming here to change everything. Same reactionary social behaviors, and often racist as a combo pack.

And no one could argue that Europe is a stranger to racism, although that was a convenient culture war weapon to reach for until the last decade when it became such a loud noise that Europe could not deny its persistence. Yet, it doesn't fit the image, so is disowned. It doesn't fit the image of a lot of Americans either, but it is an easy criticism because it sells.

Obviously, the Southern European countries don't have low birth rates, as it is a product of northern latitudes, hence Japan's identical problem. And guess what? Japan's population density is huge because of the mountainous nature of the islands and the low land area that is easily habitable for cities. Yet they still bring in Koreans and others to do backbreaking jobs and be treated as 2nd class citizens. Sound familiar?

And then there are the Arab countries where Africans are brought in to do servant and construction work, but not because the birth rates are low, merely because the disparate income levels in neighboring countries exists so glaringly. Sound familiar?