Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Asian Boss"
channel.
-
1600
-
1200
-
926
-
807
-
376
-
337
-
254
-
166
-
130
-
120
-
107
-
86
-
70
-
66
-
47
-
46
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
ScienceDiscoverer: No one said that this issue only exist in Japan. But at least Japan is somewhat proactive about it, because they came up with a name and definition for the behaviour.
It's hard discussing a problem and figuring out a solution to it, if you don't even have a name for it.
In other countries, people afflicted would be described in vague and inaccurate terms like "wierdos", "outcasts", "loners" and so on, which doesn't really help them, or provide a comprehensive description of the problem.
As to your own issues: the first thing you need to get through your head is that the world doesn't owe you anything.
You are not entitled to anything and you only deserve something by claiming it and making yourself useful to society.
Stop labeling people that you're jealous of as "extroverted" and yourself as "introverted". These terms don't help you understand the problem, they're only there to provide you with excuses for not leaving your comfort zone.
You feel anxiety in social situations? You wonder if you will be socially accepted for who you are and what you say? Well boo-fucking-hoo, EVERYONE feels like that, unless they are psychopaths.
Stop thinking that your anxiety is somehow "special" or "extra bad", because it's not.
Leave your comfort zone. Expose yourself to "dangers". Hit on a woman in public and get rejected. Pick a fight with someone and get punched in the face.
Spray some grafitti somewhere and get arrested for it. Go to a house party and greet and shake the hand of everyone there.
Do these things and reflect on the end results. Did the rejection, getting punched in the face or getting arrested lead to the end of the world? Did it kill you? Did it hurt you physically or incapacitate you in any way?
No, it won't. But right now, you don't know it from experience, because you've never left your comfort zone. So you'll never "feel" it, which is what you need to do to develop more confidence in social situations.
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Radical suggestion perhaps: but I think laws should be passed that certain jobs should only be eligible to the elderly. Meaning if you are below a certain age, you shouldn't be allowed to do certain kinds of jobs.
Jobs like office work, IT, accounting, bureaucratic and administrative positions in general.
With old age the body tends to be more fragile, but for most elderly people aside from the unfortunate individuals afflicted with disease, the mind is still perfectly intact. And the elderly have something that the young does not possess: experience.
I see no reason why a 20-something should spend his or her days as a stock broker, or IT-tech support worker, wasting away when they, by virtue of being young could perform so much better in labour jobs.
Construction, sanitation, assembly line work, automechanic work, service jobs. These should be the kind of jobs that young people should be steered towards.
That way, plenty of positions of employment for the elderly, that the elderly can actually perform, despite their fragile bodies will open up.
Also, legislation should consider a nationwide reduction in the allowed working hours per day that companies can employ people for the administrative jobs, in order to maximize the corporate need for elderly and experienced people to fill these positions.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TheShadowofDormin: It's because of their alphabets. Specifically katakana and hiragana.
These characters mean a specific sound, but each character is always a vowel and a consonant, unlike the western alphabet where each letter is either a vowel or a consonant.
So while our letters sound like "a, b, c, d, e" katakana and hiragana are always pronounced as "ka, ki, ku, ke, ko" or "ra, ri, ru, re, ro".
So in a schoolbook teaching japanese students english, they probably use katakana or hiragana letters to demonstrate how an english word is pronounced. Which then makes the words include a lot of redundant vowels, like having a "u" sound at many words.
Like the way they pronounced "kit kat" in the video, some of them said "ki-tu ka-to".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Celestial. dreamer
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Calling it racism is a bit of a stretch. Accents are just funny by nature. And that woman who called it racism should note that western white people also make fun of eachothers english accents. Like americans living in the northern regions making fun of the "southern twang" of americans in the deep south. Or brits making fun of american accent and vice versa.
Even in britain itself, making fun of local accents is fairly common (cockney, scot, irish, scouser, welsh etc.) especially in stand-up comedy and televised sketches. Same goes for americans and british people making fun of Australian english.
Oh, and practically everyone makes fun of how germans and russians speak english as well.
What non-white, non-western people need to understand about white, western culture and humour is that not all instances of impersonation and jokes around accent are hostile or insulting in nature.
Part of "fitting in" in the west means having self-deprecation humor as well as having a witty jest to deliver back when someone is "taking the piss" out of you.
If you run around feeling offended all the time someone makes a joke at your expense, then you'll never fit in or understand western, white people.
And since we have constitutionally protected freedom of speech, it's unlikely that we'll conform to indian or eastern standards of "politeness" and culture in our own homes. But if we visit India, we're likely to "do as the romans do..."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Heavy Rotation: I agree. South Korea and Japan sadly seems to have been stricken with "the grass is always greener"-complex regarding the west.
Many of them idealize and fetischize the west in a very undeserved way, even to the point where they don't appreciate their own, unique facial features, hair and such.
Personally I blame the long standing culture of conformity in east asia that still has a bit too tight grip on the Japanese and Korean societies.
To a japanese or a korean person, the west must seem very individualistic because western culture celebrates the independent thinker and personality and those who challenges social taboos. I'm convinced that in many korean and japanese citizens there are very individualistic personalities that want to express themselves, but they can't because both societies are traditionally very conformist. So people grow displeased with their own societies and culture, which manifests itself in an obsession and fetishizing of the foreign culture that seems more ideal.
I don't mean to be arrogant when I say it. I don't presume to tell other societies what they should do, because as a nationalist I have respect for national sovreignty. But, I would humbly suggest that maybe Koreans and Japanese people need to take a hard look at their culture of conformity and ask themselves if it actually makes them happy in life and if there is room for any adjustments to it that allows individuals to express themselves more freely in terms of ideas, clothing, hair etc.
I'm not saying it has to be so overdone like it is here in the west (because we have major societal problems in the west that stems from the pursuit of individualism), but a slight adjustment might be worth trying out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
안나Anna: No, animals most certainly don't.
And if "balance" was the issue, then how come child births and nativity are stagnating in pro-LGBT societies to unsustainiable levels, but the same thing is not happening in anti-LGBT societies?
Suppose that your assumption was correct and that homosexuality was a phenomenon generated by a lack of balance in a population (implied overpopulation), then we wouldn't see the statistical figures of child births dropping below an average of 2 children per couple.
But in practically every country that has embraced the pride-idiocy we're seeing the average drop below 2. And that is a clear sign of a dangerous population decline and a society growing old in terms of average age.
This will have disastrous humanitarian effects on the countries afflicted, because the older an average population in a society gets, the more the few young people will have to work in order to finance the pensions and welfare of old people who are too old, frail and diseased to work.
Or, failing that, society will simply be forced to leave it's older generation out to dry (no geriatric care to the elderly, no supvervised retiremenrt homes to help them get through their daily lives with dignity etc.)
Either way, this development will have massive humanitarian reprecussions.
And as we've already seen abundant proof of in both Europe and the U.S, importing uneducated migrants from the third world does not create any solution to the low fertility. It only generates more costs since the majority of migrants remain unemployed for years and even decades putting extra strain on the welfare budget, and many of them even resort to criminal behaviour, creating a further financial burden for the societies that takes them in.
Given the choice of having the economy completely collapse in western countries, forcing young western citizens to work even more than they already do or leaving the elderly simply to die in pain amd anguish.
OR
Discouraging homosexuality because homosexuals do not lead lifestyles conducive to procreation.
Then i'm sorry, i'm going to go with the latter.
Homosexuals "right" to live as sexual deviants is not more important than the sustainiability and survival of our economies and societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@freesian59 Thank you for your perspective Tanaka.
I guess my main points can be condensed to the following:
People should not hate other people for what happened in past wars. Governments declare war and send soldiers to war. People generally do not. (people generally don't even get a say in the matter)
If ones own government committed atrocities, then one should condemn it. If ones own government committed atrocities and refuse to apologize or own up to it, then one should also condemn it. I'm not saying that a government should have to pay money to make up for things (I generally dislike the principle that money could somehow weigh up for killings or rapes, because it implies that you can purchase your way out of guilt and responsibility with money), an apology doesn't cost anything so it's the least a government can do.
The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious. It is a chapter that no government on earth should've opened.
But with that said, The Japanese did fight in very atrocious ways. It was as if the Emperor had mobilized the entire country to fight to the death. In more "normal" warfare, soldiers fight until either side is strategically and tactically incapacitated and that side then surrenders. Yet the japanese government had basically institutionalized suicide bombings. They didn't care how many lives they threw away in their war effort. They spent lives of young men like other nations spend bullets.
When an enemy crosses that line, then you can't really fight a "normal" war against them. It's not that different from the way that muslim terrorist organizations fight today to be honest.
One has to think about what would've happened if the Americans didn't use the nuclear bombs. Let's assume that they instead chose to land troops on mainland japan and fight a land war over there. What would the japanese government do? How many more lives would they throw away in such a situation? How many japanese civilians would be coerced or even drawn to the calling of martyrdom and staging suicide attacks on american troops, putting the american soldiers in a situation where they basically have to treat every single japanese person they see as a potential hostile only to stay alive themselves?
Even today, Japan seems to struggle with a kind of suicide culture. An alarming amount of japanese people take their own lives, and this seems to be a cultural holdover from times in the past where suicide was considered a noble act to restore lost honour. One can only imagine how such a culture would manifest itself if the U.S had pursued a land war in Japan instead.
Of course it's speculation, but there's a very real possibility that even more lives would've been lost as a result on both sides. I don't wish to offend you by playing the devils advocate here, but with the nuclear bombings, they at least had the desired effect. They forced the imperial japanese government to surrender. It took the complete destruction of two cities to get them to see that no amount of "noble suicide" would be able to stop such an attack. They must have realized that the U.S could obliterate every single city in Japan if necessary so there wouldn't have been much left to fight over.
At the time, it seemed like the japanese were convinced that as long as they sent more people to die, eventually they would win. Surrender was not an option... Until the nuclear bombs dropped.
Thankfully they did surrender after that. And that was also probably the last time the U.S did the responsible thing after they go to war with another country. They stayed behind and helped rebuild and made an effort to improve relations with their defeated foes and work towards becoming allies.
Sadly, this has not been a norm for the U.S since. They have suffered from very irresponsible leadership that starts wars with other countries, destroy their governments and infrastructure, and then simply leaves the country in shambles. (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.)
But with Japan, relations have just been getting better. And both countries have flourished financially since. I don't think any member of the armed forces in the U.S look back at the atomic bombings with any sense of "pride" either. In a serious conversation about it with americans, most seem to consider it a dark chapter of their countrys history, which it most certainly was. It's not something they "wanted", but at the time they couldn't see any other option.
But one needs to look towards the future. The hatchet is buried and japanese and american citizens only stands to benefit from friendly relations with eachother.
Oh and just to put it into perspective: i'm not an american myself. This is just my view of the situation from the outside. So I don't have this view because i'm biased towards a U.S perspective or anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Nelson: Everything about humans bottles down to functions of biology. Including human psychology and the social behaviours, norms as well as taboos.
If you look at sex and attitudes towards sex from a strictly evolutionary perspective, then promiscuity in women is a clear deviant behaviour and has quite valid explanations as to why promiscuity in women is discouraged.
This because women can only produce a limited amount of eggs through their ovaries during their lifetime, whereas men can produce sperm cells at ages where the majority of women are completely infertile.
Also, pregnancies in women are relatively long and usually only result in a single offspring. And when the baby is born, it also require years of nurture and protection in order to mature to adulthood and become self-sufficient and be able to carry on the genes of it's parents.
In the modern world we have access to birth control in the form of contraceptives as well as abortions. But these inventions are relatively new, and it would be naively optimistic to assume that human psychology and behaviour should've evolved fast enough to take birth control into account.
In a fully natural context, women can't control pregnancy. In nature, women have a survival imperative to be strictly selective regarding mates and only invest her limited eggs with a worthy partner.
For men it's completely different. The genetic survival strategy for the male gender is to impregnate as many women as possible in the hope that some of his offspring will survive to adulthood.
This is what is known as "sexual conflict" in biology. Women and men, on account of their different reproductive organs have different strategies and clashing biological interests in how they pass along their genes.
And from the male perspective, there is also a biological justification to avoid selecting a long term mate who exhibit signs of promiscuity. Because if a man does settle down with a woman who sleeps around, then he also risks wasting his nurturing efforts on offspring that doesn't belong to him.
Once again, scientific acheivements allows humans to test if offspring is really theirs, but we can't assume that our psychology and social instincts have been able to evolve fast enough to "catch up" with these recent inventions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sourC0W: the elderly will earn more per hour, but being elderly they will not work as MANY hours as younger employees, which means that companies will need to hire more elderly employees to do the IT, accounting and secretary work. So in the end, the wage total will become more equal over time.
The point is to stop an untenable situation where elderly people are forced into doing hard manual labour which they don't have the constitution for, and get young people off their asses from office jobs (which is not healthy for their bodies anyway) and get the appropriate age categories assigned to appropriate jobs that fits their physical capabilities better.
Also regarding the concept of "unfair". Fairness is an entirely subjective concept.
Your suggestion of tokenism and quotas have already been tried and it doesn't work in practice. All it does is amplify stereotypes and bigotry in the work place since law mandated quotas of representation means that everyone assumes by default that a woman, black guy or muslims at the workplace only got their jobs because of state quotas and not because of ability.
Age limits are much less discriminatory in that regard since all humans grow older, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
And like I've already pointed out: we have age limits for plenty of positions and priviliges in society already (legal drinking age, legal driving age, legal working age, legal age to own firearms, even a legal age to have sex) and the public backlash has never been particularly significant. Instead most of society agrees that age limits to things are completely reasonable and logical.
Therefore convincing the population of age limits for certain kinds of jobs won't be a problem.
Also, in older societies, age limits were the standard practice. You could never reach "master" or "grandmaster" titles within a trade guild before a certain age, no matter how much of a child prodigy you might've been at your craft.
It was also standard practice within most trade guilds that the physically harder tasks for any project was assigned to the younger novices, apprentices and journeymen while the more intellectually demanding and planning stages was done by the adepts, masters and grand masters of the guild.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1