Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings | Official Teaser

[QUOTE=Celgress;5497159]They aren't, strictly speaking, but there are observable differences.

Here is something you might find interesting in regards to Human ethnic group biology look up -

"Neanderthal DNA map"[/QUOTE]

I'll check it out

[QUOTE=green_garnish;5497216]Meanwhile, MCU films have generated discussions about race and gender, about the conditions that make us human, about what would our would +not save the human race.

While DCEU films have generated discussions about which has the better VFX or lighting.

"Objectively" speaking, of course.[/QUOTE]

Seriously, why are you so petty and invested in some DCEU vs MCU narrative? It literally has nothing to do with either of them! It's just one studio got to an Asian led film first, and you want to drag it into a petty fanboy war? And you complain when Castle does the same thing?

[QUOTE=Vakanai;5497232]Seriously, why are you so petty and invested in some DCEU vs MCU narrative? It literally has nothing to do with either of them! It's just one studio got to an Asian led film first, and you want to drag it into a petty fanboy war? And you complain when Castle does the same thing?[/QUOTE]

I think you're missing the entire point.

[QUOTE=Cyke;5497076]This is the same rationale behind the murder of Vincent Chin in 1982, in a way. In the 80s, US corporations blamed Japan for the loss of auto-related jobs, and so a couple guys beat and murdered Vincent Chin, thinking he was Japanese when really he was a Chinese-American industrial draftsman. His murderers were found innocent in court.

.[/QUOTE]

That was when the Arab oil embargo started. The US auto companies were in cahoots with the oil companies so they manufacture and sell autos that burn a lot of fuel. But with the rising oil prices, the American consumers could not afford to buy a car that consume a lot of fuel. Japan, on the other hand, is an island nation with no natural oil resources at all and has to import oil from overseas. So the Japanese auto companies had to invent an automobile that consumes a lot less fuel than American cars.

It is not the fault of Japan for for the loss of auto-related jobs.
It is the fault of the US auto corporations for not manufacturing a fuel-efficient automobile. It is the fault of the American consumer for wanting to buy an automobile that burns as little fuel as possible.

[QUOTE=Zauriel;5497239]That was when the Arab oil embargo started. The US auto companies were in cahoots with the oil companies so they manufacture and sell autos that burn a lot of fuel. But with the rising oil prices, the American consumers could not afford to buy a car that consume a lot of fuel. [U]Japan, on the other hand, is an island nation with no natural oil resources at all and has to import oil from overseas.[/U] So the Japanese auto companies had to invent an automobile that consumes a lot less fuel than American cars.

It is not the fault of Japan for for the loss of auto-related jobs.
It is the fault of the US auto corporations for not manufacturing a fuel-efficient automobile. It is the fault of the American consumer for wanting to buy an automobile that burns as little fuel as possible.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly enough; an American oil embargo on Japan played an important role in the build-up to WW II in the Pacific and was one of the motivating factors that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, although most people (including historians) have conveniently forgotten.

[QUOTE=green_garnish;5497237]I think you're missing the entire point.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is that that guy has really gotten into your head.

[QUOTE=j9ac9k;5497249]I think the point is that that guy has really gotten into your head.[/QUOTE]

Lol. I can go with that. There's also the possibility that I've gotten into his.

But addressing people personally is not in accordance with the rules here.

[QUOTE=Zauriel;5497239]
It is not the fault of Japan for for the loss of auto-related jobs.
It is the fault of the US auto corporations for not manufacturing a fuel-efficient automobile.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and if America has shown anything, we as a society really rely on the "wisdom" of big companies and billionaires to guide our policies. It's terrible practice.

[QUOTE=green_garnish;5497237]I think you're missing the entire point.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think I'm the one missing the point.

[QUOTE=Celgress;5497081]What about Russians? They are a bogeyman and last time I checked they are "white".

BTW many Afghans (actually a majority) are "racially white" if we are being technical.[/QUOTE]

The number of Russians beaten and killed on the streets in the Western world (and in America and Canada) for the sake of being Russian is extremely, extremely low vs. the rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Asian hate crimes, especially since 9/11.

For that matter, I'm hard pressed to think of a consistent pattern of ethnic Russians getting beaten in America for the sake of being Russian to the point where the FBI would classify it as a surge in hate crimes. (compared to, say, Trump literally starting out his presidential campaign -- so even before he reached office -- by calling Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers en masse, which in itself led to a lot of anti-Mexican and anti-Latin violence, even though many native Spanish speakers are racially white.)

As for Afghans being racially white, that didn't stop the giant increase in anti-Afghan racial violence in the states -- if anything, that was a denial, and that helped accelerate the surveillance state that harms everyone ultimately: black, brown, white, etc. Then again, those doing the beatings aren't exactly the best and brightest minds, but they are also the voting bloc for smarter, scheming politicians with the power to enact that hate into policy and legislation for their own power.

[QUOTE=Mik;5497095]Hasn't most racial classification been debunked anyway?[/QUOTE]

The thing is, race classification is one thing, but the effects and injustices of racism endure. Racial classification at the biological level is mostly debunked, but racism is a practice based on societal factors. The former is static, the latter can be changed.

All the leaders of the world could come out tomorrow and say we are one people, but that's not gonna do a damn thing about race-based violence because that doesn't get to the root causes of that racism, which tend to be based on power dynamics and harmful institutional structures -- we'd have to take apart and unlearn decades and even centuries of harmful practices to truly eliminate racism, and that's a monumental, collective effort, but there's no time to start like the present.

[QUOTE=Cyke;5497270]Yep, and if America has shown anything, we as a society really rely on the "wisdom" of big companies and billionaires to guide our policies. It's terrible practice.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. At times I think we play lip service to democracy when we're often more of an oligarchy/plutocracy.

I think Hybrid-Regime would be the most accurate term.

The four pillars of this Hybrid-Regime are combination of corporate control over the media, first-past-the-post elections, gerrymandering, and Citizens United.

Corporate control over the media allows those corporations to manufacture consent for economically rightwing policies by framing all issues from an economically rightwing perspective, and starving those disaproved of by corporations of coverage.

First Past the Post elections prevent the rise of 3rd parties in response to corruption. Voting for a 3rd party in such a system effectively elects your worst opposition, which dis-incentivizes people from even trying, and blocks such parties from ever reaching a critical mass. This means that once corporations have corrupted the two main parties, that corruption is effectively eternal, as it can not cause the collapse of the party that would happen in a parliamentary system. Parties in a parliamentary system can easily collapse if they become corrupt, as people have many options that do not result in their biggest enemies gaining power.

Gerrymandering allows politicians to pick their voters rather than voters picking their politicians, gradually resulting in one-party states. This means that corporations only need to corrupt one party in many states. It also means that young politicians are more beholden to party leadership than to the people. This creates a Master/Apprentice relationship between young and old politicians, rather like the Sith. In such a system, networking older politicians and donors is far more important than creating policies that appeal to the people.

Citizens United legalizes bribery, making politicians more beholden to those who have bribed them than to the people.

Any two of these would result in what is officially called a Flawed Democracy. Four of them together moves America firmly into the Hybrid-Regime category.

[QUOTE=Cyke;5497286]The number of Russians beaten and killed on the streets in the Western world (and in America and Canada) is extremely, extremely low vs. the rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Asian hate crimes, especially since 9/11.

For that matter, I'm hard pressed to think of a consistent pattern of ethnic Russians getting beaten in America for the sake of being Russian to the point where the FBI would classify it as a hate crime....[/QUOTE]

Granted, however, this does not disprove that Russians are a boogeyman in America which was my statement.

[QUOTE=MichaelC;5497296]I think Hybrid-Regime would be the most accurate term.

The four pillars of this Hybrid-Regime are combination of corporate control over the media, first-past-the-post elections, gerrymandering, and Citizens United.

Corporate control over the media allows those corporations to manufacture consent for economically rightwing policies by framing all issues from an economically rightwing perspective, and starving those disaproved of by corporations of coverage.

First Past the Post elections prevent the rise of 3rd parties in response to corruption. Voting for a 3rd party in such a system effectively elects your worst opposition, which dis-incentivizes people from even trying, and blocks such parties from ever reaching a critical mass. This means that once corporations have corrupted the two main parties, that corruption is effectively eternal, as it can not cause the collapse of the party that would happen in a parliamentary system. Parties in a parliamentary system can easily collapse if they become corrupt, as people have many options that do not result in their biggest enemies gaining power.

Gerrymandering allows politicians to pick their voters rather than voters picking their politicians, gradually resulting in one-party states. This means that corporations only need to corrupt one party in many states. It also means that young politicians are more beholden to party leadership than to the people. This creates a Master/Apprentice relationship between young and old politicians, rather like the Sith. In such a system, networking older politicians and donors is far more important than creating policies that appeal to the people.

Citizens United legalizes bribery, making politicians more beholden to those who have bribed them than to the people.

Any two of these would result in what is officially called a Flawed Democracy. Four of them together moves America firmly into the Hybrid-Regime category.[/QUOTE]

Basically this yes. And to keep the system going unopposed, the media/corporations help fuel culture wars. When liberals and conservatives view each other as the enemy, they can't come together on their common ground.

Some people can't come to common ground because of how they've been treated though, and calls for unity appear tone deaf