Hi -- New here.

Phantasmal said:
It’s why I’m asking you for your evidence. I see no evidence of her being a sock, so I wouid like your observations on why you believe she is, thanks
Click to expand...

I have no responsibility to you to provide any information except if someone is breaking the rules. That was a polite way of saying INOYB.
 
Legion said:
Cool story, "sis."

How fascinating. You're another unother unverifiable anecdote merchant.

A Story for Every Occasion™.
Click to expand...

No need to take my word on it. There are news stories about similar issues -- a quick Google search didn't turn anything up for Okinawa specifically, but there's been a lot of coverage of anti-gaijin discrimination in Japan generally:

https://nypost.com/2016/09/06/how-to-navigate-tokyos-no-foreigners-allowed-dining-scene/
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...g-signs-japan-youre-not-welcome/#.W3Reo85Kipo
 
Grumpy said:
I have no responsibility to you to provide any information except if someone is breaking the rules. That was a polite way of saying INOYB.
Click to expand...
Yet, here You are handing out rewards to Legion for his stupidity and claiming someone is a sock when you offer no proof. It seems you should heed your own advice.
 
Grumpy said:
I have no responsibility to you to provide any information except if someone is breaking the rules. That was a polite way of saying INOYB.
Click to expand...

It's odd that the imbecile leaps to the defense of this particular sock, isn't it?
 
Grumpy said:
How do you spell Bullshit? I know many service men and women who have been stationed in Okinawa, and they don't report the crap you are mentioning. It shows how little you know about living abroad. BTW I spent 12 yrs living and working as well as touring overseas.
Click to expand...

nakano_maid_sign02.jpg

I have no reason to think my friend is lying to me about his experience. It's certainly consistent with some news stories on the topic:

http://wordpress.tokyotimes.org/japans-lack-of-fondness-for-foreigners/

When were the people you know stationed in Okinawa? It's possible that attitudes have changed. I know there was some very high-profile violent crime committed by American members of the Navy and Marines there back in the mid-1990s, so if their experience predates that, they may have had a different reception. Although violent crimes are very common in the US, to the point that each crime is quickly forgotten, in Japan they're rare enough that they can still have major social implications long after the fact. For example, here's a 2012 story linking anti-American sentiment in Okinawa to a 1995 kidnapping and rape of a Japanese 12-year-old by American servicemen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...utpost-Okinawa-9-000-Marines-prepare-out.html
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
I think people would also be outraged by the overall pay structure if they really understood it. People have a vague notion about CEOs being paid obscene amounts -- e.g., $40 million for a year's work. But I think most haven't really considered the way the pay structure is shaped beneath that level... how, for example, single-digit percentage bonuses for most people at the company give way to three-digit percentage bonuses for the c-level execs. If people better understood that their boss may be making twice what they do for doing a lot less, they'd be more vocal about the inequity of it all.

Off the topic, but this had me thinking about a pet theory of mine -- about why Trump-supporters in the blue-collar middle class are more pissed off about the possibility of some undeserving poor people getting a few bucks of welfare than about high-level corporate exec getting millions of dollars of benefits from corporate welfare; and why they're more outraged about the possibility of a food-stamp recipient scamming a t-bone steak than about someone like Trump scamming people out of millions.

I think it's because familiarity breeds contempt, and they're a whole lot more familiar with the low end of the income structure than the high end. They have old classmates and cousins and the like who are members of the lower class, that so they're aware, first-hand, of some unsavory people at that level. They allow themselves to think of the whole class in those terms. The lazy nephew they have who has been nursing a fake injury for 10 years to live off disability becomes their vision of all poor people.... often made all the more toxic when they then layer racial prejudices on top of that when they think of poor minorities. By comparison, they just don't run in the same social or professional circles as the economic elite, so they are taken in by the mythology about them owing their success to great personal merit. Meanwhile, young professionals like me actually run in the same professional circles as the elite. We personally interact with the c-level execs. We know they tend to be con-men and third-class intellects who get ahead through a sociopathic willingness to use others as traction. We do their work and watch them take the seven-figure paydays for our successes, while making sure we get the blame for the failures. So, familiarity breeds contempt there, too. I don't know Donald Trump personally, but I do personally know several men of his sort, and so his mythology has never worked on me.
Click to expand...

This is an eloquent and well-thought-out explanation. The only thing that I would add is that the genius of the GOP has been their ability to convince their base that if only they too work hard enough, they could also be CEOs pulling in thousands per minute. So we must not even *think* about taxing these "job creators" any more than we already do, because if you're in favor of that you could very well be cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Some day. If you work hard.

Their base was likewise easily gulled into believing that all liberals want is other ppl's money, free stuff, and larger more intrusive government/less freedom. Like you pointed out, almost everyone knows of someone they've witnessed in their own life who was cheating on unemployment, food stamps, social security disability, or the like. Or at least they appeared to be cheating. The difference, as you aptly pointed out, between political persuasions is that the cons think everyone on public benefits is cheating; liberals think that the relatively few cheaters are the small price we pay to ensure that our citizens have food, place to live, health care, etc.
 
Oneuli said:
Well, everyone here is anonymous. For all we know you're a Kremlin contractor sitting in a troll farm in Moscow. There's no way to be sure. But people can decide for themselves whether my posting is consistent with my stated biographical details or not.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Pay Grumps no mind. We've unfortunately shared forums for years. He thinks *everyone* new is a sock, particularly if they are 1) female, 2) liberal, 3) smarter than he is, and 4) obviously well-educated. In other words, at least a third of us here are socks. lol
 
Legion said:
They can. And I have, sock.
Click to expand...

You got it wrong. "Oneuli" is, of course, a pseudonym (I don't want to make it easy for someone to track me down in real life, so I won't be sharing my name), but I'm a new member here, not an alternate ID for some established poster.
 
Oneuli said:
You got it wrong. "Oneuli" is, of course, a pseudonym (I don't want to make it easy for someone to track me down in real life, so I won't be sharing my name), but I'm a new member here, not an alternate ID for some established poster.
Click to expand...

So you say, sock.
 
Hello Oneuli,

Oneuli said:
Talking politics at work would be problematic for me. Although almost nobody in my professional circle is a Trump supporter (we're talking about Ivy-educated people with advanced degrees, for the most part), they tend to be much more economically conservative than me, so it's not exactly a safe topic area. Same with religion. So, online forums are a good outlet for getting ideas off my chest and also for testing arguments before I trot them out in a setting where I'd be more sensitive to being caught in an error.

As for the nastiness, I'm fine with it, so long as it doesn't preclude discussion of substance. People can call me whatever they want, as long as they then engage on the facts and logic of what I've said, rather than just trying to derail things with personal insults. My usual approach is just to ignore the insult and respond to the substance, if there is any.
Click to expand...

Cool.

Naturally, you will find a lot of straw man builders also. They can only argue if they rewrite what you said to make it easier for them to disparage.

I wish people could simply say what they mean, and mean what they say, without all the games. Too many are afflicted with 'alternate facts.' It's difficult to discuss policy if there is no agreement on the facts. That's often done on purpose, because if they admit the facts their policy stinks.
 
Oneuli said:
Although almost nobody in my professional circle is a Trump supporter (we're talking about Ivy-educated people with advanced degrees, for the most part), they tend to be much more economically conservative than me, so it's not exactly a safe topic area. Same with religion.
Click to expand...

More anecdotes, sock?

A Story for Every Occasion™.
 
It's pleasing to watch two of our least-intelligent woman-hating con men (in both senses of that term) make fools of themselves over a new poster, who is everything they fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top