You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Yes its not ok to think thst your race is a superior race. That's what Hitler thought. That's what they thought in rwanda. Etc. Stop comparing people to cars. The fact that race is so important to you shows me you are insecure and hateful. People who lead happy fulfilling lives have better things to worry about than race. People who lose are those who think of their race as superior when they win and blame other races when they lose. Hence it is in fact sad to be you Posted via RS Mobile
i actually don't really give much thought to race. what makes you think i'm consumed on the notion that i think chinese > all everyday?
ALL i'm just saying is. IF i were to be asked, which race > all? i would say chinese because i am chinese.
YOU guys are the ones who's panties are in a bunch. OHHHHHH HE DONT AGREE WITH MY VIEWS WEHHHH
the evident backlash from the people in this thread is a prime example of it
i think you are misinterpreting what the word "race" actually means...
if you look at the anthropological definition of the term race it is defined as the following:
Quote:
Anthropology .
a.
any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b.
an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c.
a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
ergo, the chinese people would be of the "mongoloid" race, alongside koreans, japanese, etc... (even though these classifications are no long utilized in popular scholarly literature i believe it still holds a grounding in the context that this discussion is occurring in) you could interchange the word "ethnic group" if you wish as it would be suitable in this context.
what you're trying to suggest is that the chinese "culture" is better than others, or that if you were to be proposed the question "which culture do you prefer" you would reply "i believe the chinese culture to be the best through my experience or connection to it...". something along those lines.
sure if thats whats gonna calm down the RS Justice League aka Gridlock and his mistress mindbomber
next time i'll know to shut my mouth after i state my opinion... i'm not gonna even bother arguing against the Lords of Revscene
i don't think that there is an issue with you sharing your opinion.
by all means you should as everyones opinion contributes to a more productive discussion.
the caveat must be made that when you're talking about a touchy subject such as racism, politics or sexuality, you need to speak within a context where your opinion is projected in a thoughtful and objective way but still getting your point across.
atleast that way people may be able to concede a point or see things from your view rather than hurl monkey poo at you.
really deciding if should move back to HK to work but I already have several friends who came back to Canada cuz they couldnt take 10-12 hr shifts stressful as shit =(
Not sure what kind of job you are referring? I work from 9-1, 2:30-6:30, regularly (sometimes 7:30pm) in the financial industry, that's 8-9 hr. It really depends on who do you work with.
Good luck if you are an accountant in Hong Kong, I have heard 13-14hrs a day and no overtime pay.
'Citizenship acquisition is key motivation' for people who move to Canada from Asia, says Simon Fraser University researcher
BY DOUGLAS TODD, VANCOUVER SUNMAY 18, 2013
Just like thousands of compatriots who came to Canada from Hong Kong, Edward Shen has returned home.
The psychologist, who earned a PhD at Simon Fraser University, went back to his bustling East Asian homeland for reasons both familial and professional.
He is far from alone. Hong Kong-born Chinese people made up the predominant group of newcomers to Canada and Metro Vancouver in the 1990s. But since then, they have been leaving by the thousands each year.
One reason is family. Shen, who is a friend of mine, was among the first wave of Hong Kong arrivals to Vancouver, touching down here in the late-1980s. He became deeply involved in the life of the city.
However, Shen felt compelled to return to Hong Kong several years ago, in part to care for his aging mother. He also fell in love with a woman who lived in Hong Kong.
Another reason many people from Hong Kong have been returning home is money. Even though Shen had a busy psychotherapy practice in Vancouver of mostly ethnic Chinese patients, he is earning just as much working fewer hours in Hong Kong.
Still, Shen says the most common reason many Hong Kong residents have returned to their homeland from Canada is they have obtained what they believe is the "safety" of a foreign passport.
Most Hong Kong residents immigrated to Canada in the decade before 1997, when the city of seven million residents officially became a "special administrative region" of the People's Republic of China.
After 1997, when emigrants recognized China's authoritarian regime was not imposing excessively Draconian restrictions on Hong Kong, many who had obtained Canadian passports began streaming back.
Statistics Canada's numbers tell the tale. Despite Canada's rapid population growth in the past 15 years, there are now 32,000 fewer Hong Kong-born residents in Canada than there were in 1996.
The 2011 National Household Survey, released last week, shows 209,000 Hong Kong-born residents in Canada (about one third of them living in Metro Vancouver). That compares to 241,000 who lived here in 1996.
Their total numbers in Canada have been dropping despite 1,000 to 2,000 new Hong Kong immigrants a year continuing to trickle in. Even accounting for deaths, it is clear that thousands of Hong Kong citizens each year have been leaving Canada.
Hong Kong now contains more than 350,000 residents holding Canadian citizenship, according to Vancouver lawyer Richard Kurland, editor-in-chief of Lexbase, a widely read publication on immigration policy.
The perspectives of Shen and Kurland are backed by scholarly studies.
Numerous studies for Metropolis, a federal government-funded immigration research body, report that many newcomers to Canada from Hong Kong (as well as from Taiwan and China) "never intended to stay."
The Metropolis papers reveal a large portion of ethnic Chinese immigrants talk about being in "immigration prison" while in Vancouver, Toronto and elsewhere - enduring the three-year residency required to obtain a Canadian passport.
Simon Fraser University researcher Nuowen Dang is among those who has found "citizenship acquisition is a key motivation" for people who move to Canada from Hong Kong.
That is true both for those who stay in Canada and those who return to Hong Kong, Dang writes. (It is true also of other East Asian immigrants, Dang added, including those from Taiwan and mainland China, the latter now being Canada's top immigrant source country.)
The main factors drawing thousands to return to Hong Kong, Dang writes, are "higher-paying jobs, greater job security, job promotion opportunities and family reunification."
And the outbound trend continues. "Many migrants," Dang says, "do not plan to stay in Canada but rather invest in themselves for later movement" from country to country."
Metropolis researchers Shi-bao Guo and Don DeVoretz found few ethnic Chinese people who departed from Canada "expressed regrets about leaving, suggesting that many of them had not intended to stay long-term."
Even though Shen is one immigrant who did have strongly mixed feelings about leaving Vancouver to return to Hong Kong, his story reveals the powerful pull of family and finances.
"(In Hong Kong) I am perhaps working about 60 to 70 per cent of what I was in Vancouver, but saving up more than I used to, given the much lower tax rate (17 per cent flat tax)," Shen wrote in an email.
"Most Hong Kong people know that there is no big money to be made in Canada, even less so in Vancouver. Vancouver in many people's eyes is a place for retirement of rich people, as they find the living standard in Vancouver very high. Which is true. People who want to make money choose Toronto over Vancouver."
Kurland, the immigration lawyer, agrees that many immigrants from Hong Kong "who go back are tired of the high cost of living, including housing prices." He adds that some "never fit in socially in Canada."
As well, Kurland emphasizes many people from Hong Kong, as well as other ethnic Chinese immigrants, tend to see Canada as an "insurance passport," a potential safe haven in case of crackdowns by the mainland Chinese government.
Echoing Shen, Kurland noted many Hong Kong returnees with Canadian passports are getting into the habit of visiting Vancouver from time to time, while harbouring hopes of eventually retiring here.
Many of Hong Kong's well-off, educated residents, Kurland says, typify a new "international class of citizens" who have dual passports and can afford to migrate around the world to enhance their lifestyle.
Some want to "relax for a couple of months in Vancouver" during the summer when Hong Kong is "horrifically" hot, Kurland said. And, appreciating the West Coast's clean air, some dream of peaceful retirement here.
There is a potential danger for Canada in these global migration movements, however. The most crucial worry is: What happens if the ongoing clash of political wills between mainland China and Hong Kong blows up?
Kurland warns that the huge contingent of expatriate Canadians in Hong Kong would cause expensive problems for Canadian governments if China imposes more human-rights restrictions on its dependent region.
That, Kurland says, could cause hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents with Canadian passports to suddenly flood back to this country - where they would be immediately eligible for health care, education and other taxpayer-funded benefits.
Something similar happened before to Canada. When Lebanon became embroiled in a war with Israel in 2006, more than 50,000 residents of that country held Canadian passports.
Many hadn't seen Canada in more than 20 years, Kurland says. But, since they had dual citizenship, we had an obligation to airlift thousands out of the war zone.
"They ended up having a Canadian vacation, paid for by Canadian tax dollars. And three months later, they were back in Lebanon," says Kurland, who frequently appears before House of Commons immigration committees.
Even though it will likely not be a military conflict that pressures Hong Kong residents back to this country, Kurland says Canada could still experience "a mass emergency crunch."
"If it goes badly between China and Hong Kong, you would see an extraordinary number of Hong Kong returnees" suddenly eligible for Canadian support services. "It's an economic vulnerability for the country."
Clearly, the issue of returnees to Hong Kong - to say nothing of all the immigrants who head home after obtaining a Canadian passport - has profound implications.
Not only for the returnees. But for the future social and economic well-being of Canada.
As Kurland says, "The Hong Kong story is not over."
Not sure what kind of job you are referring? I work from 9-1, 2:30-6:30, regularly (sometimes 7:30pm) in the financial industry, that's 8-9 hr. It really depends on who do you work with.
Good luck if you are an accountant in Hong Kong, I have heard 13-14hrs a day and no overtime pay.
I disagree!! I lived in Hong Kong for most of my life before moving to Vancouver (16 to be exact) and personally I find that people there are much less racist than those over here. Firstly I can tell you that I have a much more culturally diverse group of friends in Hong Kong than I do over here. I rarely hear anyone using terms such as "white trash" "Fobs" "Surrey jacks" or equivalent terms, compared to people here. In fact, the only group of people Hong Kongers discriminate is probably mainlanders, but that is not without reason. I have often seen and heard of accounts where some mainlanders taking a leak on the streets, or even holding their kids above the rubbish bins to take a dump. The worst part is, the public toilets were RIGHT BEHIND them.
Then again I can only speak for myself and the group of people around me. All I'm trying to say is that that statistic doesn't speak for all of us, and that people from any part of the world can be equally as racist or receptive of different culture and/or races.
just read this thread now. yesterday I was at new brighton park, swimming in the pool with my gf. we went out to get some fish and chips, and from the concession, 30 feet to your left are public restrooms, and inside the concession owners driveway(aprox 15 ft to the right of the concession) was an Asian lady letting her child (maybe 4 years old) squat down and piss...she just smiled at me and nodded while I looked in disgust. told the lady who runs the concession, she ran out and reamed the bitch out and kicked her family out of the park.
^ur right, ppl here do throw around racist terms and hold racist stereotypes like it's nothing Posted via RS Mobile
Because thats what it is. Just words, stereotypes only exists because they're true, to an extent. Racism will never go away. We as a human race feel obliged to let everyone know what we think of each other, good or not.
__________________
There's times in life where I want a relationship, but then I cum.
Quote:
[23-08, 13:17] nabs i've gripped ice boy's shaft before
Quote:
[26-08, 13:50] Jesusjuice is this a sports car forum? why are there so many hondas?
just read this thread now. yesterday I was at new brighton park, swimming in the pool with my gf. we went out to get some fish and chips, and from the concession, 30 feet to your left are public restrooms, and inside the concession owners driveway(aprox 15 ft to the right of the concession) was an Asian lady letting her child (maybe 4 years old) squat down and piss...she just smiled at me and nodded while I looked in disgust. told the lady who runs the concession, she ran out and reamed the bitch out and kicked her family out of the park.
I have heard an anecdote from Mainland China.
A guy drives up in a new Rolls Royce, pulls his son out of the car and lets him defecate on the sidewalk. He quickly wipes the son, puts him back in the car and drives off. Didn't even pick up after him.
A phd in psychology allows you to analyze political events.
I have triple citizenship and the possibility to get another. Come at me
__________________ There's a phallic symbol infront of my car
Quote:
MG1: in fact, a new term needs to make its way into the American dictionary. Trump............ he's such a "Trump" = ultimate insult. Like, "yray, you're such a trump."
bcrdukes yray fucked bcrdukes up the nose
dapperfied yraisis
dapperfied yray so waisis
FastAnna you literally talk out your ass
FastAnna i really cant
FastAnna yray i cant stand you
Because thats what it is. Just words, stereotypes only exists because they're true, to an extent. Racism will never go away. We as a human race feel obliged to let everyone know what we think of each other, good or not.
finally. someone who wont get their period over "words"
was actually surprised from the backlash of the Lords of Revscene when i made the posts
i mean... im not committing genocide on a race....jeez
A guy drives up in a new Rolls Royce, pulls his son out of the car and lets him defecate on the sidewalk. He quickly wipes the son, puts him back in the car and drives off. Didn't even pick up after him.
I even pick up after my dog, can't pick up after your baby...
With the gutting of foreign coverage by most U.S. newspapers and the need to populate infinite Web space with content, a new creature has emerged: the foreign affairs blogger. Max Fisher, who hosts the Washington Post’s WorldViews page, is a leading exemplar of the species. Fisher’s newsy nuggets are often low-priority zeitgeist items that may or may not be vignettes of greater themes: examples in recent days include the tunnel-smuggled delivery of KFC chicken into Gaza, the video of the Czech president possibly drunk, a staff-passenger brawl at Beijing airport, and New Zealand’s “war on cats.” Fisher also concocts FAQ-style explainers on places in the news that he judges to be obscure to his readers (Chechnya and Dagestan, Central African Republic, Mali). And he is very keen on global surveys, whose results he summarizes, augments with his own interpretation, and typically renders with color-coded maps that drive home the key message.
This week, Fisher proposed to his readers what he titled “A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries.” The deep-blue, racially tolerant areas included the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, and much of Latin America. The deepest-red, or most racially intolerant, countries were India, Bangladesh and Jordan. Russia and China fell in the middle; much of Africa was left out for lack of data, but South Africa came out light blue (highly tolerant), and Nigeria light red (highly intolerant). Other highly tolerant countries included Pakistan and Belarus.
A cursory glance at this distribution of results would suggest something deeply suspect about the exercise; moreover, anyone who studies the concept of race knows that it is hard enough to operationalize in a single-country context, let alone in cross-national comparison. Still, Fisher soldiered on, offering bullet-point findings: “Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant,” “Wide, interesting variation across Europe,” “The Middle East not so tolerant,” and the like. He offered country-level speculation: tolerance was low in Indonesia and the Philippines “where many racial groups often jockey for influence and have complicated histories with one another,” and lower in the Dominican Republic than in other Latin countries “perhaps because of its adjacency to troubled Haiti.”
Where did these numbers come from? As Fisher explained, they came from the long-running World Values Survey, which has polled attitudes around the world for decades. Fisher was drawn to the topic by news of a new paper, by a pair of Swedish economists, on the links between economic freedom in a country and its level of tolerance. (The paper was described in a post at Foreign Policy, itself a hub of foreign-affairs blogging.) To measure racial tolerance in particular, the authors used question A124_02 in the World Values survey, which asks respondents whether they would “not like to have as neighbors people of another race.” Intrigued, Fisher went back to the survey itself and, as he put it, “compiled the original data and mapped it out in the infographic” that led his post.
Although the results don’t pass the sniff test in the first place, I took a look at the data as well, in an effort to identify the exact problems at play. It turns out that the entire exercise is a methodological disaster, with problems in the survey question premise and operationalization, its use by the Swedish economists and by Fisher, and, as an inevitable result, in Fisher’s additional interpretations. The two caveats that Fisher offered in his post – first, that survey respondents might be lying about their racial views, and second, that the survey data are from different years, depending on the country – only scratch the surface of what is basically a crime against social science perpetrated in broad daylight. They certainly weren’t enough to stop Fisher from compiling and posting his map, even though its analytic base is so weak as to render its message fraudulent.
For one thing, the values for each country are indeed from different years, some in the past decade, others as old as 1990. As Fisher put it coyly, “we’re assuming the results are static, which might not be the case.” Indeed: by a rigorous methodological standard, this would be enough to throw out the cross-country comparison in the first place.
Second, a visit to some of the other tolerance questions in the A124 series reveals absurd results and design idiosyncrasies that should render the results of question A124_02, on race, suspect. The other questions ask respondents if they would accept a neighbor who had various other traits: homosexuality, a different religion, heavy drinking, emotional instability, a criminal record, and so on.
To take an example of the weakness of the data, it would appear that in Iran in 2000, only 0.9 percent of respondents “mentioned” an objection to having a homosexual neighbor, whereas in 2007, 92.4 percent mentioned it. In Pakistan in 2001, according to the survey, 100 percent of respondents “did not mention” objection to a homosexual neighbor. These are obviously particularly buggy examples, but these are the data points that the survey offers for analysts to work from; readers can visit the database to form their own opinion.
Moreover, the menu of traits available in the survey for respondents to tolerate or not tolerate varied by country. Thus, Iranians were asked about Zoroastrians; Puerto Ricans, about Spiritists; Tanzanians, about witchdoctors; Peruvians, inexplicably, about “Jews, Arabs, Asians, gypsies, etc.” (A124_33). In other words, the question about race was presented as part of a different menu of questions depending on the country, another red flag signaling a need for caution in isolating it and using it to produce grand findings. And further issues abound: as Fisher noted, self-reporting of prejudice is unreliable to begin with; as the scholar Steve Saideman pointed out, the “neighbor” question is not the best measure of tolerance; and so on.
But the biggest problem, of course, is that “race” is impossible to operationalize in a cross-national comparison. Whereas a homosexual, or an Evangelical Christian, or a heavy drinker, or a person with a criminal record, means more or less the same thing country to country, a person being of “another race” depends on constructs that vary widely, in both nature and level of perceived importance, country to country, and indeed, person to person. In other words, out of all of the many traits of difference for which the WVS surveyed respondents’ tolerance, the Swedish economists – and Fisher, in their wake – managed to select for comparison the single most useless one.
Fisher has an active social-media presence and his posts circulate quite broadly among international-affairs geeks and journalists in many countries; this one found the usual echo on the networks, plus a fair amount of skepticism. In India and Pakistan, Twitter readers were shocked by India’s ultra-high and Pakistan’s ultra-low racial intolerance ratings, both on their own merits and in comparison to each other. Lakshmi Chaudhry and Sandip Roy, at India’s Firstpost, wrote a detailed objection. (Less productively, Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss objected that Fisher’s map excluded Israel, implying that this deliberately overlooked racism in Israel – a spurious accusation, since there are no data available for Israel for question A124_02 in the WVS in the first place.)
On Twitter, Fisher engaged with Saideman but brushed off other queries, tweeting archly: “Coincidentally, readers from red countries are much more likely to say they doubt the methodology behind this study.” When I raised many of the issues in this post, he offered no response or acknowledgment at all, except to block me on Twitter. (That’s why I’m not bothering to seek comment from him before running this piece.) He summarized a few of Saideman’s objections in a follow-up post, but much of this goes down the rabbit-hole of political-science arcana about ethnic conflict and, for some reason, the specific case of Somalia. A more intellectually honest move would have been to take down the map and explain to readers why the exercise was doomed from the start.
Instead, we are left with a shiny color-coded “fascinating map” on the Washington Post site that sends a strong message of Western, Anglo-Saxon moral superiority, assorted with a mystifying portrayal of the rest of the world, and accompanied by near-gibberish interpretations – all based on a methodological process that fails pretty much every standard of social-science design and data hygiene. In other words, pseudo-analysis that ends up, whether by design or by accident, playing into an ideological agenda.
But the problem here isn’t the “finding” that the Anglo-Saxon West is more tolerant. The problem is the pseudo-analysis. The specialty of foreign-affairs blogging is explaining to a supposedly uninformed public the complexities of the outside world. Because blogging isn’t reporting, nor is it subject to much editing (let alone peer review), posts like Fisher’s are particularly vulnerable to their author’s blind spots and risk endogenizing, instead of detecting and flushing out, the bullshit in their source material. What is presented as education is very likely to turn out, in reality, obfuscation.
This is an endemic problem across the massive middlebrow “Ideas” industry that has overwhelmed the Internet, taking over from more expensive activities like research and reporting. In that respect, Fisher’s work is a symptom, not a cause. But in his position as a much-read commentator at the Washington Post, claiming to decipher world events through authoritative-looking tools like maps and explainers (his vacuous Central African Republic explainer was a classic of non-information verging on false information, but that’s a discussion for another time), he contributes more than his weight to the making of the conventional wisdom. As such, it would be welcome and useful if he held himself to a high standard of analysis – or at least, social-science basics. Failing that, he’s just another charlatan peddling gee-whiz insights to a readership that’s not as dumb as he thinks.
A guy drives up in a new Rolls Royce, pulls his son out of the car and lets him defecate on the sidewalk. He quickly wipes the son, puts him back in the car and drives off. Didn't even pick up after him.
Remember that 20 years ago they were living on farms, like their ancestors before them stretching back centuries. Or maybe their parents were intellectuals and had to be re-educated. Now they're making millions of dollars, but still have that rural mentality. In rural China, there are no toilets or sewer systems of any kind, so when you have to go you have to go. It is highly frowned upon when adults do it.
When the little boy defecating on the sidewalk has children of his own, he will make sure they don't continue the tradition. I hope.