Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Jacob]

I saw the tweet before it was deleted, and before I was aware of the controversy.  It didn't even occur to me that the character was Asian (though admittedly when I watched it the second time after the controversy, it does seem clear if you start off knowing that). 

However, the second part of the necessary connection is Kyle Larson.  Simply put, while most people know that he has Japanese ancestry, that knowledge is really a biographical detail as far as his public image is concerned.  I don't think anyone thinks of him as an Asian driver, and NASCAR never heavily promoted him as that (and certainly not after the N word incident made him a problematic symbol of diversity).  It's just not part of his public image or identity.  I would think that in order for a joke on someone to be stereotypical, it has to be on people's minds that the target of the joke belongs to the stereotyped race, and I really don't think that's the case with Larson.

I think it's fine to have a "it's not that big a deal" reaction to the course of events.

It's definitely something that back in the day would've been fine. "Look, here's an Asian character who's shit at driving and I'm saying you drive like her. Hahaha!" and maybe they're slyly referencing that the person they're pointing at has Asian ancestry (which in the old days would've made it funnier), or maybe they're ignorant.

Yeah, a few decades ago this'd be something you'd just brush off and if you felt hurt by it - or someone else did - you'd be told to man up / not be a pussy / quit whining. And it wouldn't be a big deal. And now a bunch of people think it is a big deal, and as a result the guy who made the tweet has to be punished by... watching some videos, maybe talk to someone who'll tell him to be more aware, and he'll say "yeah, I didn't think it through I'll be more thoughtful in the future...". And that's an example of "the radical left wing running amuck and being out of control?"

I dunno if I'm misunderstanding the argument, but the whole thing seems pretty trivial to me. I get that it may seem annoying, and even a bit stressful ("what if I say something and everyone calls me a racist and my whole life is ruined")... but compared to labelling people who are supportive of their gay kids "groomers" and threatening them with jail, compared to criminalizing abortion, compared to supporting police killing black folks with impunity, and compared to attempting to storm congress and overthrowing an election... I dunno... it just doesn't seem particularly extreme.

[DGuller]

The normalization of "you think that because you're white" argument is another irritant that makes people perceive the influence of extreme left.  Not only is that a horrible argument when it comes to the power of convincing people, but it's also racist.

"You think so because you're white" is annoying, yes, and usually put forward in bad faith (or lack of thinking things through). I don't see it as a particularly big deal. Nor do I see some public person having to take some sensitivity training because they retweeted something racist as being a fucking deal... especially when compared to the radical right agenda of undermining democracy, waging war on truth, and hurting minorities because it makes them feel good to be bullies.

Why do we always have to compare to the far right?  Besides, from a pragmatic perspective, I do think that woke left is enabling the fascist right.  I think more often than not people get annoyed at woke left not because the far right convinced them to be annoyed at them, but because the woke left convinced them to be annoyed at them.  And, by the way, saying that you're annoyed at woke left because the far right duped you into that is also not that persuasive.  It is possible for people who disagree with you to form their own thoughts independently.

[Jacob]

The comments all came after the controversy came out, in fact there wouldn't even be this tweet if the original weren't deleted.  The comments do not represent the contemporaneous interpretation of the meme.  When I watched it the first time, I didn't come to the tweet with expectations already set.  I personally had no idea there was anything Asian about it, that's all I can say, but I concede that the cartoon part would probably be obviously Asian to enough people even without coming to it with biased expectations.

Again, I'm going to stress on the other part.  In order for this to be an Asian driver joke, Kyle Larson has to be viewed as an Asian driver.  He simply isn't viewed that way.  It would be very different with Bubba Wallace, who most definitely is viewed as a black driver, and the fact that he's a black driver would be on the minds of everyone.

The character in the meme is:

1) A shit driver.
2) Asian.

The meme itself is already trading in "Asian drivers are shit." That's the thing that makes it funny, if you're partial to that type of humour.

[Jacob]

Why do we always have to compare to the far right?  Besides, from a pragmatic perspective, I do think that woke left is enabling the fascist right.  I think more often than not people get annoyed at woke left not because the far right convinced them to be annoyed at them, but because the woke left convinced them to be annoyed at them.  And, by the way, saying that you're annoyed at woke left because the far right duped you into that is also not that persuasive.  It is possible for people who disagree with you to form their own thoughts independently.

Would you even be aware of 99% of what the woke left did if we didn't have Fox and the far-right social media sphere screaming about how awful the woke left is?

[Admiral Yi]

"You think so because you're white" is annoying, yes, and usually put forward in bad faith (or lack of thinking things through). I don't see it as a particularly big deal. Nor do I see some public person having to take some sensitivity training because they retweeted something racist as being a fucking deal... especially when compared to the radical right agenda of undermining democracy, waging war on truth, and hurting minorities because it makes them feel good to be bullies.

Whereas it's an absolutely monumental deal when compare with the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial.

What is the purpose of this comparison other than to deflect attention from people you want to protect from scrutiny?  It's not an either/or choice.  People can think and talk about two things at the same time.

[DGuller]

The simplest explanation is that they're not powerless idiots now.  They're very powerful on a corporate level.  I'm sure the CEOs golfing in their private clubs are not themselves woke, but they know they may have problems if they don't pay the right kind of lip service.

How does this express itself?

Yeah, CEOs of big corporations (and small ones, for that matter) have to be in favour of inclusivity and diversity, not tolerate sexual harrassment, discrimination, and bullying and things like that... even if they'd prefer not to care. Sometimes, some folks use that to play clever politics, which is annoying and different when the clever politics relied on other tools... is that what you mean? And if so, how is it a big deal?

And if that's not what you mean, what do you mean?

I don't know if I meant that, what you said can mean many different things.  I agree with the general sense that it's a good thing if CEOs are in favor of good things, and that it's a bad thing if CEOs are in favor of bad things.

What exactly does "diversity and inclusion" mean?  It could mean anything from "don't use the N word in public" to hiring quotas to company policies devoid of nuance and sense.  What does not tolerating sexual harassment mean?  It could mean not shielding people proven to sexually harass from any responsibility, or it could mean zero tolerance for things that someone could perceive as harassment, no proof of intent required.  And so on.

One thing that I do mean is that corporations will almost never stick with a person who's a target of a Twitter mob, for example.  If Twitter thinks you're a racist, you're so fucking gone from whatever company you work for, and the company will put out a statement patting itself on the back for never tolerating making Twitter mad.  You can say that doesn't actually happen all that often, but you don't need to destroy that many individuals to intimidate millions.

[DGuller]

Would you even be aware of 99% of what the woke left did if we didn't have Fox and the far-right social media sphere screaming about how awful the woke left is?

I think I would be aware of close to everything I'm currently aware of without Fox, for the reason that I think I'm very well insulated from Fox and their satellites.  Not only do I not watch them, I don't interact with people who do, and I try to block them out from any feed I'm subjected to.  I think my blockade of Fox is fairly effective, because it inevitably shocks my system whenever I do get exposed to whatever fantastical reality they're spinning.  All of my frustrations with the woke leftism, insofar as I can remember it, comes from my personal exposure to the woke left.

[crazy canuck]

What exactly does "diversity and inclusion" mean?  It could mean anything from "don't use the N word in public" to hiring quotas to company policies devoid of nuance and sense.  What does not tolerating sexual harassment mean?  It could mean not shielding people proven to sexually harass from any responsibility, or it could mean zero tolerance for things that someone could perceive as harassment, no proof of intent required.  And so on.

These things actually have pretty clear meanings.  I don't know what you mean by policies devoid of nuance and sense.  Do you have something particular in mind?

Not tolerating sexual harrassment means no sexual harrassment.  I am not sure what you are questioning there. 

[crazy canuck]

Would you even be aware of 99% of what the woke left did if we didn't have Fox and the far-right social media sphere screaming about how awful the woke left is?

I think I would be aware of close to everything I'm currently aware of without Fox, for the reason that I think I'm very well insulated from Fox and their satellites.  Not only do I not watch them, I don't interact with people who do, and I try to block them out from any feed I'm subjected to.  I think my blockade of Fox is fairly effective, because it inevitably shocks my system whenever I do get exposed to whatever fantastical reality they're spinning.  All of my frustrations with the woke leftism, insofar as I can remember it, comes from my personal exposure to the woke left.

What is the woke left if you are leaving behind how Fox has defined it?

[grumbler]

"Not part of the radical right", but "chooses to spend most of his time crying about the same things they cry about." Mhm.

That is just a fucking lie.

I do no at all spend most of my time, or most of my posting talking about the radical left at all. To the extent that I do spend time on it, it is because I think it is important - incredibly important - that the left stay the adult in the room, seeing as their isn't another option.

I post about a lot of shit, and I think anyone who has paid any attention to my views know exactly where I stand in regards to whether I am "part of the radical right"

So please feel free to go fuck yourself. What an asshole.

You are then unwittingly spouting their lines. Which might even be worse than doing it intentionally.

It's funny to watch you spout all of the climate-change deniers' arguments, just in a different context.

The split in the US left is a huge problem when it convinces hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters to stay hoe on election day in Virginia, giving the governor's mansion and state House into Republican hands.

The left wing of the Democratic Party certainly has legitimate complaints about how the party is run and how policies are made, but they can't let better be the enemy of good enough.  The current Democratic party leadership is crap, but time will quickly solve that problem without a civil war in the party.  The focus has to be on winning races, not winning debates.

[Berkut]

The GOP let itself be captured by the right wing crazies. The Tea Party and such. As such, the composition of the political representation of the "right" reflects to most extreme members of the right.

The left has avoided that, thank god. The left has NOT let the Democratic Party get captured by its most radical elements. This is a good thing, and something we should continue to resist, and part of that involves not kidding ourselves about their existence and desire to do to the Democrats what the Tea Party did to the GOP.

I agree, but this is the exact opposite of what that cartoon implied.

It's a cartoon. They aren't exactly nuanced.

You seemed to miss its point though.

No, I think I exactly got its point, because I didn't start from the presumption that I was trying to interpret its point in the mos negative light possible.

I find that really does help actual discussion. If you start with the presumption that the person you are trying to communicate with is not some stick figure two dimensional asshole and the goal is to find out how to not understand what they are trying to say.

YMMV, of course.

You seemed to focus on its "left went left-way" point, but I think it was equally an important point it tried to make with the "conservative" view point not moving an iota. Which is of course a ridiculous notion, as we have established.

That is ridiculous, but I don't think that was the point of his sharing it, or of the comic generally.

[crazy canuck]

It's funny to watch you spout all of the climate-change deniers' arguments, just in a different context.

Are you feeling ok?

[Berkut]

It' fascinating to watch the strategy play itself out. If you don't agree with the most radical left of ideas, why, you are either a secret Trumper, or a useful tool of them.

It is the exact point the stupid cartoon is making, playing out right here.

[Josquius]

It' fascinating to watch the strategy play itself out. If you don't agree with the most radical left of ideas, why, you are either a secret Trumper, or a useful tool of them.

It is the exact point the stupid cartoon is making, playing out right here.

Actively embracing hard right ideas  ! = falling afoul of intolerant anyone who disagrees with me is Hitler attitudes.

[Berkut]

It' fascinating to watch the strategy play itself out. If you don't agree with the most radical left of ideas, why, you are either a secret Trumper, or a useful tool of them.

It is the exact point the stupid cartoon is making, playing out right here.

Actively embracing hard right ideas  ! = falling afoul of intolerant anyone who disagrees with me is Hitler attitudes.

Nobody in this thread is embracing "hard right ideas". Nobody.