My white Facebook friends continue to express their outrage that a white woman was fired by Akima LLC for giving President Trump the finger (BBC). There are exhortations to call up Akima and demand answers (“#Resist”). Who are the targets of this hatred? The owners of Akima are “the Inupiat people of northwest Alaska”. So my virtuous Hillary-supporting friends are trying to set Native Americans on the path of righteousness.
Let’s hope this doesn’t turn Native Americans against the cause of immigration!
[Note that I have non-white Facebook friends as well, but they tend not to express outrage on Facebook (and seldom in real life either; I was around some Chinese immigrant physician-moms the other day and they were the opposite of outraged by media reports of sexual harassment, e.g., asking “What are all of these women doing in married guys’ hotel rooms?”).]
Another day and we have more bizarre statements. My guess is that hatred is a rather strong term for what these people are expressing. Nevertheless, some people are upset at the actions of other people. The fact that they happen to be of different races is irrelevant in this case.
Also, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about these “Chinese immigrant physician-moms”. Are Chinese-American women less bothered by sexual harassment? If so, who cares?
“Also, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about these “Chinese immigrant physician-moms”. Are Chinese-American women less bothered by sexual harassment? If so, who cares?”
Are you really that naive, or is this a rhetorical device?
We’ve established that nobody but me thinks it is funny for a bunch of rich white do-gooders to protest their collective victimhood regarding what was done by a group of Native Americans.
[Actually my Facebook friends are probably more accurately characterized as “say-gooders” because they are most likely to express noble sentiments regarding helping the vulnerable and resisting Trump the Oppressor, but then they buy themselves new SUVs rather than give money to the poor.]
White female’s victimization by Native Americans featured in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/opinion/anger-women-weinstein-assault.html …
“Just this week, Juli Briskman, a government contractor, lost her job after a photo of her flipping off the presidential motorcade went viral. Solange, Britney Spears, Sinead O’Connor, the Dixie Chicks, Rosie O’Donnell — I struggle to think of women who lost their tempers in public and didn’t face ridicule, temporary ruin, or both.”
Are you really that naive, or is this a rhetorical device?
It’s a sincere question. I have to imagine that if I went and harassed a Chinese-American woman in my office, that she wouldn’t like it. If I’m mistaken about that, I suppose that I am naïve on the subject.
We’ve established that nobody but me thinks it is funny for a bunch of rich white do-gooders to protest their collective victimhood regarding what was done by a group of Native Americans.
If some people object to the way that some person was treated by her employer, categorizing those objections as protesting “their collective victimhood” would generally be inaccurate.
And you also know for a fact that these people never give any money to charities that help the poor? So you have a lot of friends whom you consider to be hypocrites. Do they know that you fell this way about them?
Vince: If your “office” happens to be a hotel room, the situation is surely comparable and you can tell us how it goes.
Do my say-gooder Facebook friends never give any money to charity? Of course they do! If they spend $100,000 on a Tesla S they will surely not begrudge a virtue-signalling charity $100. But if a person is sincerely concerned about inequality and the vulnerable, moral and intellectual consistency requires them to give 100 percent of their surplus income to those less fortunate. So… after paying for a modest-sized apartment, a public transportation system pass (or maybe a 10-year-old Honda Accord), etc., to wear a true do-gooder title one would have to give the rest to charity and/or directly to the poor.
Are my friends hypocrites? I hope not! But remember that the original post concerns my Facebook friends, which is a different group of people.
Ok Vince, since you claim to ask a sincere question:
The Chinese ladies were practicing something called “slut shaming”, because in their cultural background, it would have been considered extremely naive for a female who cares about her virtue to go into a married man’s hotel room without anybody who would effectively act as a chaperone.
Their statements were not actually endorsements for harassment, but rather a claim that ladies in their early to mid twenties should be expected to practice sound decision making (possessing agency), and if their desire was actually to get career advice, it would be naive to go unaccompanied to a married man’s hotel room, however if their plan involved sleeping their way to career advancement, going to that hotel room might be a rational decision.
But you knew all this, you just like to participate in the witch-hunt. If ladies in their early twenties were that naive, should they be allowed to vote, drive a car, buy a gun?
“But you knew all this, you just like to participate in the witch-hunt.”
Regarding the witch hunt, I am not participating, but I am regarding it with the same concern as I am democrat on democrat violence in the ghettos.
#3 It is amuzing for sure!
#7, it is legal for people of any sex to go anywhere where they are invited not expecting to be raped or forced into sexual act. And most American millenials definitely think so. So there may be 50% percent chance that each victim is actually a victim, it makes a lot of real victims.
I had some misgiving about the allegations as well but the more info comes out it goes way deeper than I imagined. Hiring former intelligent agents to spy on your victims is insane.
@Anonymous #10
There may be a 1% chance, and there may be a 99% chance. I doubt we have any data to tell, in absence of video and/or audio recordings of the encounters, which would be pretty creepy.
Let’s change the framing: If you were (or are) the father of a young lady, would you advise her to go alone to hotel rooms of powerful men that have a history of getting what they want?
Realize my perspective, I have nothing but contempt for Weinstein (see comment # 8), but I am questioning anybody that wants to defend poor decisions by young ladies.
Viking 12, I would advise kids to keep 100 miles for Hollywwod or coasts, it does not mean that young adults are going to listen to me, the way I would not listen to previous generation (I was mostly right, in the hind sight). Still, it is no reason to subject anyone to sexual assaults.
Their statements were not actually endorsements for harassment, but rather a claim that ladies in their early to mid twenties should be expected to practice sound decision making (possessing agency), and if their desire was actually to get career advice, it would be naive to go unaccompanied to a married man’s hotel room, however if their plan involved sleeping their way to career advancement, going to that hotel room might be a rational decision.
You’re making a lot of assumptions based on one sentence that Phil attributes to those friends of his. Do you think that those women hold Mr. Weinstein completely blameless? There have also been rape allegations. Are the victims to be blamed for their own rapes? Do we know for a fact that the every single accusation to date involves activities in a hotel room? If some of this took place in an office or restaurant, would those Chinese-American “physician moms” have a different attitude?
It occurred to me during lunch today that a lot of people in China, Korea and other Asian countries go on a lot about the Japanese comfort women more than 70 years after the fact. If Phil’s friends agree that those women were
victims of war crimes, would that make them hypocrites?
But you knew all this, you just like to participate in the witch-hunt. If ladies in their early twenties were that naive, should they be allowed to vote, drive a car, buy a gun?
In general, everyone over 18 should be allowed to vote. On the other hand, if you’re going to take the vote away from naïve people, we should start with those white working class voters who think that Trump is going to bring good manufacturing jobs backto the Rust Belt.
Also, I didn’t know all that and I’m not participating in any witch-hunt. The witch has already been hunted.
Finally, regarding the statement in #12, I would advise anyone not to leave their car unlocked in a high crime neighborhood. Nevertheless, if someone ignored my advice and had her car stolen, I would consider the thief to be at fault.
But if a person is sincerely concerned about inequality and the vulnerable, moral and intellectual consistency requires them to give 100 percent of their surplus income to those less fortunate. So… after paying for a modest-sized apartment, a public transportation system pass (or maybe a 10-year-old Honda Accord), etc., to wear a true do-gooder title one would have to give the rest to charity and/or directly to the poor.
So since nearly no one anywhere in America does this, only a handful of people really care about the inequality and the vulnerable.
Vince: “only a handful of people really care about the inequality and the vulnerable.”
Exactly! Talk is cheap and signalling virtue on Facebook is even cheaper.
I have personally worked with someone who walked the walk. Scott was an engineer at Hewlett-Packard Research Labs back in 1982. He probably earned about $45,000 per year at a time when a nice apartment in Palo Alto could be rented for $700 per month (because immigration doesn’t drive up real estate costs, I’m sure that the same two-bedroom place could be obtained today for $1,800/month, the CPI-adjusted equivalent in mini-dollars). Instead of splurging on his own apartment, he lived in one room in a group house. Instead of splurging on an enclosed automobile in the mild California climate, he owned a moped and a bicycle. By living modestly (but comfortably), he was able to donate more than 50 percent of his income to the causes in which he believed.
[Separately, he didn’t scold co-workers who chose to spend their surplus earnings on luxury goods. One guy was married to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Kurtzig , the founder of ASK Computer, and would drive the family Ferrari to work. Scott didn’t take him aside and scold him for not persuading his wife to drive a Toyota instead and give the difference to charity.]
“We’ve established that nobody but me thinks it is funny”
Well, I do too.
I was making a little joke. You’re holding people to an ridiculous standard. Accusing people of virtue signaling is a form of virtue signaling itself.
Here’s another thought. You don’t actually know what Scott’s motivation was. He could have made his charitable contributions and kept them secret. It’s possible that he didn’t care about the poor or the environment or whatever and was just trying to impress people with his generosity.
As things has gone Scott had to instead put all the money into asset protection trust or just stock market.