It only shows us that current Chinese regime is a civilisational dead end.
Also, by that point, they didn't have the money. China was overpopulated and did not have marginal income to pay them, and the productivity was overall too low. No one in China had money, so force ruled.
> It only shows us that current Chinese regime is a civilisational dead end.
Creating an all-encompassing historical 'rule' like 'money always wins' and then discounting evidence of a blatant counter-example is not generally a method that ends in good outcomes.
See: all major failed political movements based on an ideology that refused to adapt to conditions that did not line up with its dogma.
The USA threw 100k+ of its own citizens in concentration camps, stripping them of property and leaving them in poverty after the war. Not exactly a shining moment for principles.
> Many Americans remain unaware of the spike in anti-Asian American racism and hate over the past year.
...yet on the same page the responses to "How has your opinion of Asian Americans, in general changed over the past 12 months?" overwhelmingly skew to "stayed the same" or "positive".
Maybe I'm missing something, but it certainly seems like they are trying to push a narrative that even their own data doesn't support.
If you assume that people answered honestly, it's very possible that remaining proportion of people who viewed Asian Americans negatively were more likely to express anti-Asian American racism and hate over the past year, instead of keeping quiet about their views.
Furthermore, a lot of people are biased to skew their responses or lie due to social-desirability bias [1]. The responses are self-reported. It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
Most importantly, anti-Asian hate crimes have "increased by 339 percent" from 2020 to 2021 [2]. Even if you doubt the data, comparatively, crime reports are more reliable and objective than self-reports when you ask a population about their views of people of a particular ethnicity.
> It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
This statement crosses the line into absurdity.
The poll (that they designed!) didn’t give the “correct” results so time to do some hand waving and move the goalposts.
I’ll never understand this obsession with imagined grievances and jumping through hoops to paint one’s self as a victim. What is the point? Attention? Pity?
There is no absurdity, as "recall bias" is a recorded effect where people inaccurately remember past experiences to fit their current worldview (source: https://catalogofbias.org/biases/recall-bias/). You also ignored the points on social-desirability bias and crime reports and just asserted there is no increase in racism, and racism is a result of "imagined grievances" and victim culture.
You're asserting that the crime reports are wrong, and we can conclude that racial incidents did not increase because people in a survey said they weren't racist.
Many Asian Americans aren't asking for your "attention" or "pity." If there is more awareness among the Asian American community of racist incidents (e.g. many Asians getting randomly punched or pushed onto the subway tracks), one can have more aware of their surroundings when going outside to avoid random violence.
1. Recall bias is a fancy concept to whip out, but now sure I follow how you think it applies here or helps your point: "I am kinda racist now but I was even MORE racist against Asians in the past" Huh?
2. You can't just ignore a poll because the results don't match your message and then just say: "Oh, well, we can't even trust the results of this poll guys. All the racists will just say they aren't racists... cuz, cmon, we like KNOW there are SOOO many racists!"
3. Hate crime reporting has increased because HOW these incidents are now reported has changed in the past ~18 months at the Federal and local levels. Are there fewer or more of these incidents? Is there some trend? I don't think less than 2 years of data can tell us much of anything.
I find it interesting that when this argument fails to find any actual evidence it reverts to vigorous hand waving and asking us to believe there is some growing contingent of illusive racist boogeymen.
You wrote that we can’t ignore evidence that does not support your worldview in point 2, and then you flipped and said we should ignore the evidence of crime data in point 3, because the results did not match your own message.
At least be consistent and say “we don’t have enough data to conclude either way,” instead of claiming that it’s a bold statement that polling data is less reliable than crime statistics.
> Furthermore, a lot of people are biased to skew their responses or lie due to social-desirability bias [1]. The responses are self-reported. It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.
Not just that, people are also just biased to believe their previous opinions are consistent with their current opinions.
Something about the poll itself feels incendiary. I think these kinds of polls and the spin the media puts on them seems as if it was designed to stir the pot.
The concerning stats are on slides 32 and 33, showing that an increasing number of Americans believe Asian Americans are more loyal to their country of origin, and that Asian Americans contributed to COVID-19. Unlike some of the other stats, this one isn't broken down by party. But I would bet that almost all of this increase was among Republicans. Slide 19 provides some support for this, as conservatives were more than twice as likely as liberals to say that racism against Asian Americans has stayed the same or decreased.
Aggregate polls hide the bimodal nature of American politics, which makes them largely useless in understanding what is actually happening in the population.
The change I want to see is broad recognition that Republican leaders are leveraging latent racism for political gain, so that moderate voters turn away from the party and it is forced to abandon that cynical strategy, which is actively dividing the country.
I want a world where decisions are based in truth. And the truth is that the Republicans have given up on trying to stop their party members from being overtly racist and xenophobic.
Personally, I think some weird process of self-radicalization involving the newest mass media and a denial of reason and fear of change in racial demographics, has kicked in with the Republicans and they won’t be able to stop it internally; there are no lines of common decency where the swirling madness won’t push all the thoughtful people past. I believe the rest of the civic body will have to stop them using our power. Yes, science is real. no, there’s no big differences between ethnic groups. Yes, being racist fucks up society for a long time, let’s stop. Yes, women are human also. Yes, immigrants refresh and renew the US commitment to hard work leading to achievement and the US ability to respect, enjoy and combine all human cultures. We, the majority, will vote, organize to vote, and push this world view every day for a hundred years rather than slip back into authoritarian or racist past which was anti-science, anti-truth, and anti-virtue.
Look again. Their very own data doesn’t support your attempt to blame those darned racist conservatives.
The parent comment link allows you to view responses by political affiliation and answers by conservatives skew greatly to a more “positive” view of Asian Americans over the past 12 months.
Just a reminder to check your biases. Everything you don’t like isn’t caused by the other political party.
You're right, but you don't make a string claim or cite evidence, thus the downvotes. Here's the facts:
On the question of "Asian Americans as a group are more loyal to their country of origin than to the United States", Democrats experienced a 60% increase year over year in agreement (22=>35), whereas Republicans experienced only a 36% increase (24=>33).
On the question of "Asian Americans as a group are at least partly responsible for COVID-19", Democrats experienced a 135% increase year over year in agreement (10=>24), whereas Republicans experienced only a 91% increase (13=>25).
Now for my take on these facts:
I don't find either particularly concerning. There certainly are some Asian Americans who are more loyal to their country of origin than to the United States, and that ground truth number may or may not be accurately represented by these surveys in one or both years. There's no way to know from the information we are provided, and there's no reason to make a value judgement either way. (Is it "wrong" for someone to be more loyal to their home country?)
Regarding COVID, in my opinion Asian Americans as a group are absolutely at least partly responsible for COVID-19... but so is every other group! To claim that any group holds absolutely no responsibility of our collective handling of the global pandemic is absurd. We're all in this together.
The screen that says "However, an increasing percentage of Americans in 2022 are questioning the loyalty of Asian Americans and blaming Asian Americans for the Covid-19 epidemic."? There's no drill-down there for me.
Update: ok, found it---it's not on the screen that shows the specific questions, you have to scroll down through the drop-down on the first screen.
> Just a reminder to check your biases. Everything you don’t like isn’t caused by the other political party.
You are correct. If I'd made the bet, I would have lost because the underlying data shows most of the increase in agreement on these two questions was among Democrats. (For those looking for the breakdown of the data, the first page has a dropdown with all of the questions and an option to filter by party affiliation.) Though the Democrats response on the COVID question add up to 102% for some reason, it doesn't materially change the result.
That will only work if you are on the same subnet.
When you craft a packet for that address, the stack will see that route and send an ARP "who has" request out whatever interface you assigned when you did that IP route rule (probably your default ethernet). If nobody responds than the packet dies in the stack.
172.16.0.0/12 is a private subnet. This means that it's addresses are relevant only within a local network, and never over the internet. If you try to send a packet to an address within that subnet, layer 3 devices (i.e. routers) on the internet will drop it.
Walmart makes over 200k in revenue per employee. Using profit to make your point is not applicable if honest. Otherwise you would advise Amazon to cease hiring altogether in all those years they were seemingly losing money per employee.
How can we know that? The profit margin that is publicly known is after spending that might be optional. For instance, Walmart could forego some investment like building a new store, or expand more slowly, and be able to pay higher wages that go beyond the buffer of their current profit margin as a result.
> The profit margin that is publicly known is after spending that might be optional. For instance, Walmart could forego some investment like building a new store, or expand more slowly...
You can see cap ex on their cash flow statement and create all sorts of hypothetical profit margins for them. Walmart can't actually take a hit like that because their monopoly power isn't strong enough. Their game is low prices. If they grow slower, they'll start losing market share to the dollar stores, Target, etc. If they raise their prices, the same thing happens. It's different when labor is in short supply or you want more skilled labor. Starbucks pays more and hires somewhat overqualified baristas because they see value in it and offering a premium experience.
You've got it backwards. Toxic masculinity is exactly the avoidance of vulnerability and emotional openness you praise, not horsing around with your buds.
You don't have to guess on the definition by the way, as academic terms tend to be well explicated.
> You don't have to guess on the definition by the way, as academic terms tend to be well explicated.
I disagree that the meaning of "toxic masculinity" is as clearly defined as you claim, or that it is even an academic term [1]:
> The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is not an academic term. It has little currency in academic scholarship on men and masculinities, although this may be changing. Common terms in scholarship for dominant forms of masculinity include ‘hegemonic masculinity’, pioneered by influential theorist Raewyn Connell, and simply ‘masculinity’. There is of course academic debate over how to understand these terms.
If you can cite a clear, concise, and universally accepted definition of toxic masculinity, though, I would be interested to read it.
I cannot cite a universally accepted definition of anything. That is an impossible standard and I'm sure nothing I say will satisfy you. The only help I can offer you here is to question the neutrality of that link.
Something important to understand is that the hard sciences are more rigorous, but that's because they're easier to model than what the social sciences have to deal with. The naming is confusing.
Are you aware of what happened to the landlords in China or do you mean the landlords weren't human?