Honkies Abroad

[RalphWiggum]

OK, when I left this morning I was squaring up to some troll. Now the posts are gone. What happened??

[valve-bouncer]

OK, when I left this morning I was squaring up to some troll. Now the posts are gone. What happened??

I think the DD broom has got an airing Ralph.

[RalphWiggum]

Goddamnit! I was hoping for a verbal ruck tonight. Can we let Niku back in for a while so we can kick him around for a while instead?

[indoctrin8]

that's a point, chubbsy. 4 moderators? 3 too many. explain youselves, you self -congratulatory bastards!

[barten]

Is using Gaijinness to pick up J-chicks like black kids using their race to get into a good college?

Are both wrong? Just one? Any comments?

When a "J-chick" chooses to be picked up by you, she chooses to do so as an adult with her faculties intact (hopefully). She chose. You're not fucking her, she's fucking you. "Using" isn't really an issue. There's no law here that says a cute bird needs a gaijin on her resume to be complete. It's pure consumerism. At no point can you say "but I'm foreign, so you have to come back to the hotel with me to fulfil the national quota".

Next time you discriminate against some black guy in the states, tell him "Now you know what it feels like to be a foreigner in Japan, ya cunt" and see what reaction you get. White people and the so-called "natives" might be held in a certain regard here for their inherited English ability. Call it positive disrimination if you want, but it's still racism. Racism is ugly in any form. Asian immigrants and their families have it tough here, as DIT pointed out, but that doesn't make any other racism better. The whole thing's gotta stop. Don't do it at home, and don't accept it here. Don't accept it at home, and don't do it here.

[monkeypants]

"Now you know what it feels like to be a foreigner in Japan, ya cunt" and see what reaction you get.

Just calling someone a cunt alone will have most people ballistic. I've already grown desensitized to it from reading so many posts with that word in it but it is, IMO, probably the one truly unmentionable word in the U.S.

[Smurfette]

"Now you know what it feels like to be a foreigner in Japan, ya cunt" and see what reaction you get.

Just calling someone a cunt alone will have most people ballistic. I've already grown desensitized to it from reading so many posts with that word in it but it is, IMO, probably the one truly unmentionable word in the U.S.

I used to hate that word, too, but I started using it in Japan. I think the first time was when I moved to the big city and an aggressive obachan nearly mowed me down with her bike. It just kind of slipped out under my breath, and I was quite surprised to have used it. I found many other occasions to use the word in Nagoya, usually on the subway with rude old ladies.

Jeez, that makes me sound so callous, calling old women "cunts," but, you know what? They were, and at least I said it under my breath.

[BakaMike]

You raise an interesting point. In the UK, Oz and I guess NZ when we say cunt we are usually referring to a guy. To hear a woman called one is a little strange to me. I`ve heard Americans and Canadians using it for women but I`m not sure if that`s because American usage is different or they don`t understand the way it is generally used. I would guess that because it is such a taboo in the US it isn`t used very much so when people do use it the meaning gets confused.

Although the connotations are a little different, it`s a bit like calling a woman a "pussy" - again a bit strange.

[monkeypants]

You raise an interesting point. In the UK, Oz and I guess NZ when we say cunt we are usually referring to a guy. To hear a woman called one is a little strange to me. I`ve heard Americans and Canadians using it for women but I`m not sure if that`s because American usage is different or they don`t understand the way it is generally used. I would guess that because it is such a taboo in the US it isn`t used very much so when people do use it the meaning gets confused.

Although the connotations are a little different, it`s a bit like calling a woman a "pussy" - again a bit strange.

Yes, that's exactly it. It's never used to refer to men, only to women in an attempt to verbalize one's boundless animosity for the female in question. You can tell you're talking to someone from the states if you see them either flinch or laugh everytime you say this word in a conversation, depending on their familiarity with its various uses.

[DragonEagle]

Universities CHOOSE who gets in. Students can only apply. Do you use your stupidity as an excuse for your inability to understand the admissions process?

You could say that J-chicks "choose" who gets into their pants.

[BakaMike]

Yes, that's exactly it. It's never used to refer to men, only to women in an attempt to verbalize one's boundless animosity for the female in question. You can tell you're talking to someone from the states if you see them either flinch or laugh everytime you say this word in a conversation, depending on their familiarity with its various uses.

So you`re saying that it`s only used for women in the US?

[LeBlueBoy]

Although the connotations are a little different, it`s a bit like calling a woman a "pussy" - again a bit strange.

Not quite. Usually it refers to the only socially redeemable feature of a particularly nasty female (who would otherwise be a complete waste of space).

I wouldn't consider it a taboo term, just one that's reserved for special occasions.

[monkeypants]

Yes, that's exactly it. It's never used to refer to men, only to women in an attempt to verbalize one's boundless animosity for the female in question. You can tell you're talking to someone from the states if you see them either flinch or laugh everytime you say this word in a conversation, depending on their familiarity with its various uses.

So you`re saying that it`s only used for women in the US?

Well I suppose it could be used for men too, but it sounds really strange, in the same way it would using a feminine pronoun for a guy. At least where I'm from.

[Smurfette]

Well I suppose it could be used for men too, but it sounds really strange, in the same way it would using a feminine pronoun for a guy. At least where I'm from.

I don't hear it used much for men, either. They would be "asshole" or "cock" or "cocksucker."

Jeez, I feel dirty just typing all of these.

[valve-bouncer]

Jeez, I feel dirty just typing all of these.

I think, speaking for most of the blokes here, we love it when you talk dirty.
Now go and wash your hands.

[Ojii]

Universities CHOOSE who gets in. Students can only apply. Do you use your stupidity as an excuse for your inability to understand the admissions process?

If RACE is not a part of the "admissions process" why do they have that BOX for you to check on which RACE you belong to?

I know of some traditional BLACK colleges that will GIVE a FREE education to WHITE students in their attempt to add some some racial variety. In some cases, RACE is a part of the admissions process.

[monkeypants]

Universities CHOOSE who gets in. Students can only apply. Do you use your stupidity as an excuse for your inability to understand the admissions process?

If RACE is not a part of the "admissions process" why do they have that BOX for you to check on which RACE you belong to?

I know of some traditional BLACK colleges that will GIVE a FREE education to WHITE students in their attempt to add some some racial variety. In some cases, RACE is a part of the admissions process.

I believe it's for statistical purposes. By knowing who's from where they can make a cool pie chart to be presented in some meeting to some administrative-type people to say how wonderfully diverse the university is. I don't think it's to single out each applicant by race. There'd be some hell to catch for doing that, were the right people to investigate those practices. Or maybe I'm just incredibly naive...

[DragonEagle]

Sorry to burst your bubble Monkeypants, but many unversities in the US use lower standards to judge certain minorities so it is easier for them to get in an dthe university gets to pat itself on the back for being "diverse".

The problem is that if people with lower skills are let in, they often cannot cope with the even higher academic level of university and unfortunately many drop out.

So in that case two people can't graduate form college, the person bumped and the person who dropped out.

[Smurfette]

I think what colleges try to do is look at the big picture. It's a lot easier for some rich kid from the suburbs who has grown up surrounded by books and high quality language to do better on a standardized test like the SAT then some poor urban kid raised by a single welfare mother who doesn't have the means nor the parenting skills. It's much more impressive for a kid raised in such a difficult background to get 1050 on his/her SATs than it is for a affluent kid to get 1200. Using the same SAT score as a standard for admissions is like telling kids they have to run a race in twenty seconds, but starting some of them at the 100 meter mark and others at the 300 meter mark.

I would just as soon have colleges not count race as a quality for admission, as long as they continue to count the applicant's socioeconomic status. I don't know the statistics, but I would bet that minorities make up a higher percentage of families on public assistance than they do of the general population. Until the percentage of minorities living in poverty falls in line with that of the white population, using socioeconomic status will have the same effect as counting race as a factor in admissions.

Of course, those black kids like the one who lived a couple of doors down from me, with an entymologist father, a high school honors biology teacher mother, and a shiny black sports car...with a color-blind policy, they will no longer benefit. Honestly, those don't need it and can get into top colleges on their own merit.

[Ojii]

. . .Your "person bumped and person who dropped out analogy" is garbage. There are so many options for education in the United States. There are so many routes to success in academics. The idea of higher education being scarce is laughable. . .

DDog has brought up several points that I am in agreement with, but the point of 'bumping someone out' may pose a problem. Certainly there are numerous options in the U.S. to pursue higher education, but the problems of selectively choosing someone based on race is most problematic in situations concerning graduate schools or prestigious university programs with limited openings.

Was it the University of Michigan? I am unsure, but there was a court case concerning this issue. A law school in a well-known university opted to set a % for BLACKS. This formula was considered unfair by the courts because many WHITES with higher test scores and better academic records were not accepted to the program while BLACKS with lower test scores and worse academic records were. This is racial discrimination, is it not? Well, this sort of issue occasionally comes up. I believe the schools have made adjustments of some sort. I am not going to debate the fine details but I believe these issues of university entrance based on race are a related component to affirmative action, another form of reverse discrimination.

Americas are too sensitive in discussing issues concerning race. If a WHITE person talks about racism or reverse-racism with the mention of BLACKS, they are often quickly labeled as a RACIST in their own right. This is unfair and racial issues need to be discussed objectively without instant name calling and labeling.

[LeBlueBoy]

Was it the University of Michigan? I am unsure, but there was a court case concerning this issue. A law school in a well-known university opted to set a % for BLACKS. This formula was considered unfair by the courts because many WHITES with higher test scores and better academic records were not accepted to the program while BLACKS with lower test scores and worse academic records were. This is racial discrimination, is it not? Well, this sort of issue occasionally comes up. I believe the schools have made adjustments of some sort. I am not going to debate the fine details but I believe these issues of university entrance based on race are a related component to affirmative action, another form of reverse discrimination.

U of M should have actively spent time scouting minority students that had the qualifications to be admitted to those programs. If the minority students had met the academic requirements, there would have been no issue.

Broadening the search is a much more ethical approach than lowering the bar.

[Melodious_Thunk]

I would just as soon have colleges not count race as a quality for admission, as long as they continue to count the applicant's socioeconomic status.

I don't think they should count either. If a poor person is qualified to get in, they should let that person in and maybe provide financial assistance. If the bar is lowered for a less-qualified poor person, however, that means letting in someone who is unprepared at the expense of someone who is. That's not really fair to either of them.

By the time people are looking to get into an elite university or law school (and that's where these cases are taking place), it's really too late to start trying to "make up for differences." The obvious solution is to make sure everyone (including poor kids) gets a good primary-school education. By trying to tip the scales at the end of the educational process, that is only an attempt to achieve equality of results, not equality of opportunity. Affirmative action is nothing more than a way for certain white people to salve their consciences while ignoring the larger underlying problems of society.

[yume25]

I would just as soon have colleges not count race as a quality for admission, as long as they continue to count the applicant's socioeconomic status.

I don't think they should count either. If a poor person is qualified to get in, they should let that person in and maybe provide financial assistance. If the bar is lowered for a less-qualified poor person, however, that means letting in someone who is unprepared at the expense of someone who is. That's not really fair to either of them.

By the time people are looking to get into an elite university or law school (and that's where these cases are taking place), it's really too late to start trying to "make up for differences." The obvious solution is to make sure everyone (including poor kids) gets a good primary-school education. By trying to tip the scales at the end of the educational process, that is only an attempt to achieve equality of results, not equality of opportunity. Affirmative action is nothing more than a way for certain white people to salve their consciences while ignoring the larger underlying problems of society.

I agree about ensuring a proper primary and secondary education for everyone. Such an undertaking would be very expensive though, and despite the grand promises of politicians of every stripe, it has yet to be forthcoming. I always get the feeling that even in a country as advanced as America, the future is just not often given much thought. Or perhaps it is just that enough of the population doesn't give it enough thought. "Hey kids, here's your second-rate education, a system of tests just like the great Japanese system (:roll:) and huge national debt. Not to mention this handy air filter that you must wear at all times or you will die while outside."

But then, I'm a bit of a lefty.

Edited for spelling, as usual.

[Smurfette]

Hmmm...since everyone likes the bar analogy, I'll use that one. Let's say a high jump bar is set at 2m from the ground. You give one competitor a pedestal 1.8 m high and you tell the other one to jump from the ground. The competitor on the pedestal manages to jump .3 meters and make it over the bar. The competitor on the ground works hard, but only manages to jump 7.5 meters. Who is a stronger competitor? I'd say the guy on the ground. Given equal starting circumstances, he could soar. I'd take a poor minority kid who worked hard but just barely missed the bar to a rich white kid who just barely passed it any day. I would bet that the kid used to working hard would continue to do so and eventually soar in college over the kid who never had to work hard in his life. This is like what dogdays was saying about the women in Ethiopia being admitted with lower marks and doing well in university.

Note, I'm not saying take those kids who can barely write their names over child geniuses just because of their background...but there is some wiggle room in the middle to take applicants' socioeconomic status as a factor in admissions, not just for financial aid.

[yume25]

Hmmm...since everyone likes the bar analogy, I'll use that one. Let's say a high jump bar is set at 2m from the ground. You give one competitor a pedestal 1.8 m high and you tell the other one to jump from the ground. The competitor on the pedestal manages to jump .3 meters and make it over the bar. The competitor on the ground works hard, but only manages to jump 7.5 meters. Who is a stronger competitor? I'd say the guy on the ground. Given equal starting circumstances, he could soar. I'd take a poor minority kid who worked hard but just barely missed the bar to a rich white kid who just barely passed it any day. I would bet that the kid used to working hard would continue to do so and eventually soar in college over the kid who never had to work hard in his life. This is like what dogdays was saying about the women in Ethiopia being admitted with lower marks and doing well in university.

Note, I'm not saying take those kids who can barely write their names over child geniuses just because of their background...but there is some wiggle room in the middle to take applicants' socioeconomic status as a factor in admissions, not just for financial aid.

MT did say that primary level education should be improved for everyone. This wouldn't eliminate every last advantage a kid that comes from money has, but an worthwhile education would not be making a kid jump from the ground. This is all entirely contingent on a better primary (and in my opinion, secondary) education. I think MT has it right when he says we should start there, as opposed to so late in the game.

[DragonEagle]

No admission process is perfect.

DDays, if you feel so strongly that past performance is such an unreliable indicator of future academic performance, what do you suggest as admission criteria?

I'm against ANY race based criteria at all. I kind of have mixed feelings about socioeconomic criteria. I think I would be more for it if weren't so intermingled with race as a factor.

I find affirmative action programs sickening and I truly believe that they are a major factor holding back better race relations in the US.

If a black or hispanic guy gets a university spot or a job, no matter how well they are qualified, it puts a shade of doubt in many people's minds as to whether they really belong there, including in their own minds in some cases.

I had a college internship with Mobil Oil and besides the normal intern spot, there was one specifically for black college students. The guy I knew who had it was totally smart and had absolutely no need for special consideration to land an intern spot. But he was totally frank with me about the riding the gravy train for all kind of publicly subsidized scholarships given out to blacks, not minorities. He basically said to me "Whay shouldn't I?" And I gotta say that I would probably do the same in his shoes and don't begrudge him for it. It is the system that clessifies people by race that is at fault.

There are plenty of middle, upper-middle and upper class minority students and plenty of lower class majority students, but they are simply judged by the color of their skin. This is sick, whether it has negative of positive results for a particular person, it just creates negative feelings and ill-will for all people.

[Smurfette]

MT did say that primary level education should be improved for everyone. This wouldn't eliminate every last advantage a kid that comes from money has, but an worthwhile education would not be making a kid jump from the ground. This is all entirely contingent on a better primary (and in my opinion, secondary) education. I think MT has it right when he says we should start there, as opposed to so late in the game.

I agree that improving primary education is a crucial goal, but it will not be done overnight. It has already started, in a lot of areas, specifically with the trend of switching back to phonics-based reading instruction rather than whole-language-based reading instruction. However, what about those kids who pass through primary school before improvements are made? There has to be a plan to recognize comparable to superior ability in children who have started way behind the others, and thus appear to not have achieved as much. As the differences in educational quality diminish, then we can start using more standard admissions criteria. We're not there yet, though.

And we cannot overlook the community that the children grow up in. They spend only about 7 hours a day in school. The rest of the time some are raised by adults that can't even take care of themselves...others raise themselves. Many don't have someone at home who recognizes the value of making children do homework, or reading to children, or taking the kids to the library to borrow books that they can't afford to read. Unfortunately this attitude is more common among poor households. For a child to rise above these circumstances to just barely miss the bar takes a great deal of effort, not to mention good fortune. It is these children who are key to helping to break the cycle of poverty that we see in so many urban settings.

[Smurfette]

I'm against ANY race based criteria at all. I kind of have mixed feelings about socioeconomic criteria. I think I would be more for it if weren't so intermingled with race as a factor.

This wouldn't be the case if the percentage of minority children living in poverty was closer to the percentage of white children living in poverty. As those percentages become closer, using socioeconomic status will become less intermingled with the race factor.

There are plenty of middle, upper-middle and upper class minority students and plenty of lower class majority students, but they are simply judged by the color of their skin. This is sick, whether it has negative of positive results for a particular person, it just creates negative feelings and ill-will for all people.

I agree. Taking race out of the equation and using the circumstances under which the child grew up will put those lower-class white students on a more level playing field as well, while taking the race card advantage away from middle-class to upper-class minority students.

[DragonEagle]

All interesting comments on this thread!

I started this with my gaijin guys bedding J-girls comment. I was thinking of the "Charisma Man" series of comics (if you don't know it, you've gotta read it!) and it got me thinking how people take advantage of their racial status in various ways.

I just felt like I should explain that, since I was implied as a racist a few posts back.

PS I hate all you honkies!

[Smurfette]

All interesting comments on this thread!

I started this with my gaijin guys bedding J-girls comment. I was thinking of the "Charisma Man" series of comics (if you don't know it, you've gotta read it!) and it got me thinking how people take advantage of their racial status in various ways.

I just felt like I should explain that, since I was implied as a racist a few posts back.

PS I hate all you honkies!

Yeah, I tried to kill it with my zucchini recipe because the original premise has, in my mind, been argued to death. Every newbie (at least those of us from the US) has that debate at one point or another. The original poster was just trying to stir up shit.