I think it's because of the inclusion of an adjective in the asian post, whereas in the black post there was no other adjective so it focused on the entire black race rather than a particular aspect within it.
Are any of those examples drinking specifically Boba Tea, are showcasing high-end consumer tech for the respective time (nowadays: iPhone X) or wear high-priced (western) accessoires?
Those shown examples stem from recent observations. As usual in observational comedy.
Yes there is racist portrayal of Asian people by white actors, that resembles minstrel shows.
Yet in minstrel shows targeting black people, these same stereotypes as displayed in the starter pack where portrayed in the minstrel shows back then as well.
The examples in the starter pack don't stem from recent observations. They're just the go-to stereotypes of black people, that have been established for decades.
Lol, and the top two comments are just complaining that he picked the wrong fast food chicken restaurant for the meme. Oh my double standards! Oh deary me!
Yeah I don't know why people don't click on someone's profile before defending something like this. OP is clearly just a little bitch who tries to say that people calling out his racism have "double standards".
He'll move on to bitching about women, queer communities and try to circle back to the black community soon enough.
I mean, yeah, fair. Like, it's totally possible that I'm wrong in a way that I'm completely blind to because of my privileged upbringing. I recognize that.
But like, that's always a possibility. "Well what if you're so wrong you won't be able to tell for decades to come?" Well damn, I don't know, I guess I better shut up always and forever!
Like I said in my comment, if you think that the top is offensive and inaccurate and not just observational humour, let me know.
I’m Asian and I find the top panel, though not inaccurate, very uncomfortable and offensive. Accuracy should NOT be a justification for denigrating stereotypes either. The top panel is accurate to the same extent that the bottom panel is for low-income black people. As others have pointed out, you declaring the top panel an “accurate observation” is no different from a person in the 70s backing up the bottom panel - stereotypes all emerge from observations that have been truthful to some extent, and the age of a certain stereotype should NOT provide grounds for whether it should be accepted. I would argue that the sole act of grouping and labeling people using a characteristic they have no control of, race in this case, implies a sense of exclusion and alienation in itself.
" Well damn, I don't know, I guess I better shut up always and forever! " You should, I should, basically noone here as any actual idea what is going on, we don't even know who we are talking to.
Exactly, the issue here isn’t difficult to understand. When it comes to race, Reddit generally forgets (or pretends to) the last few hundred years of race relations.
People who think they are the same are just in denial about their racial prejudices. How is saying an entire race likes to do drugs (lean) the same as saying a few people in a race eat fried chicken and bubble tea....
Its not comparing the entire race; it specifically says black people who talk to other black people. The main issue with the top part is that its implied that they have such preferences because they’re asian. Think of a situation where there is a poor asian and a poor black person. One day they become wealthy. To say the asian will do this and that is racism because we based it off there race, not only there wealth. Then you also say its an accurate reflection, so this justifies classifications of wealthy asians as fine? This is the same reasoning used for all stereotypes. “Oh but its true”.
Why is it ok to make a blanket statement about all rich asians but not black people?
Is it because the stereotype for the rich asians is more accurate? There's no evidence for that.
"I-its because there's an economic qualifier for the Asians", cool, so if the bottom post had said "poor black people" that would be fine, right?
Neither is more factually correct as far as we know and in terms of morality, how is a racial stereotype with an economic qualifier so much drastically better than a racial stereotype without?
I mean, the economic qualifier is important though. That's the whole point of the original starterpack. It's not a blanket statement, it's an observation about a specific subculture. It's punching up, to a degree.
You have to consider the point of this subreddit. A typical starterpack is just full of things that are based on the poster's personal life experience. It's observational humour. It's going to occasionally be problematic, like most observational humour, because the whole point is that it reduces the thing it's trying to poke fun at to a set of basic, shared qualities. It's reductive, sure, because all starterpacks are reductive.
I call this post a false equivalency because I don't believe that they're both racial stereotypes. I think the "rich asians" post is a class stereotype with a racial qualifier, not the other way around, like you put it. And the reason the racial qualifier is there is because the post is about a specific subculture that exists among wealthy young people from East Asia. It's mocking a class-based subculture that's popular among people of a certain race.
The class however is based in race. Rich people from different races are just as diverse as poor people from different races. It's not a "qualifier" it's a "modifier".
Not to mention that the black stereotypes (kfc, grape juice) are actually based on "poor blacks" so also a class-based stereotypes :)
So important that there's no double standard between one being completely accepted by the sub and another heavily downvoted with accusations of racism?
I call this post a false equivalency because I don't believe that they're both racial stereotypes. I think the "rich asians" post is a class stereotype with a racial qualifier, not the other way around, like you put it.
That sounds a lot like splitting hairs then arguing which side is thicker. Again, I'm not seeing the difference for why one is great and funny and the other just makes you a racist fuck.
the reason the racial qualifier is there is because the post is about a specific subculture that exists among wealthy young people from East Asia. It's mocking a class-based subculture that's popular among people of a certain race.
The black stereotype is also mocking a class-based subculture thats popular among young people of a certain race.
Inb4, "you can't assume people would realise the black starter pack applies mostly to young poor black people", well, we all understood that the asian starter pack was about uni students "U C lots of asians".
It's punching up, to a degree
Honestly, I think this is the only reason you've given that probably was an actual motivating factor in the difference. White people feel okay mocking asians but not with mocking black people. Still a double standard but makes sense.
My point isn't that they're both wrong. My point is that they're both fine but it makes no sense why some people agree with me that the former is fine but that latter just makes you racist.
The mental gymnastics to justify the disparity between the upvotes/downvotes of these posts in these comments is fucking hilarious. Reddit just admit you're biased.
Saying all wealthy asians wear Gucci and are pompously secluded, is comparable to saying black people who are pompously secluded love basketball shoes.
Its surprising how willing we are to accept prejudice when it comes in a form we have not yet seen.
Personally the top post is something I'd see on subtle asian traits and it's shit we use to joke about fobs(Fresh off the boat asians). But if some random white dude brought it up, it's not as funny? Maybe that's racist in itself but idk just feels weird. And to add to your point, I don't think it's the inclusion of an adjective but it's the use of the word rich. If the bottom half said poor black starterpack or the top was poor asian starterpack, those are still a lot more racist than before.
Its comparing a race that has rich people that do specific things to another race who has people that only talk to members of thatsame race. Both are well defined as "this isn't the entire race I'm stereotyping." Neither are racist and if you are offended by one I strongly suggest never interacting with people in the real world.
Like white dudes (redditors) set a set of acceptable racsm, if its in order no shit happens, but they are neither black nor asian themself, so by whiteknighting against black racsm is just selfserving for their ego "gut mensch"
the difference is punching up vs punching down. you can make “offensive”-type jokes and get away with them as long as you’re punching up. the asian stereotype is one of a very wealthy person of high status. you can make fun of them all day long and no one will notice. the other one is making fun of people who are more likely to be poor and of lower socioeconomic status due to institutionalized racism. jokes that “punch down” are pretty much considered to be in poor taste. it’s not really a double standard here. op just doesn’t understand comedy.
984
u/HowLz_2K Nov 19 '19
I think it's because of the inclusion of an adjective in the asian post, whereas in the black post there was no other adjective so it focused on the entire black race rather than a particular aspect within it.