****Trigger Warning**** Trading and Racism

[RussWilliamL 21]

In high school american English grammar classes regarding sentence structure, we learned about context and "implied subject".  In this case, the implied subject is "stocks", and "Chinese trash" is an adjective modifying/describing that implied noun.

Unfortunately,  some people struggle with thinking objectively when presented with words and phrases they are conditioned to be "triggered" by.    It certainly is heavy handed, though, to dismiss them with the equivalent of "piss off".

 

 

[Roberto 10]

I see moderation crew has been removing legit criticism without public statement.

Nice.

[Bailey Nevener 83]

On 6/24/2021 at 8:02 AM, rddad said:

During the live premarket show someone pointed out that calling Chinese stocks "Chinese Trash" was not racist. As a Chinese American, I've long ago decided to not take offense to that term, but I've had to devote personal time to actually process the term "Chinese Trash" as a non-racist statement. I think we can make a reasonable assumption that a lot of other people don't have to do that when they here something like "My-Nationality Trash". I've had to process that statement because my initial reaction to hearing it was that someone was attacking me for how I look. Having said that I understand that "Chinese" can refer both to the country or the people.

 I agree that it is useful to try to be nice and agreeable to everyone in a chat room.  I agree that in talking about any nationality, the odds that someone will take offense, regardless of the context, is extremely high.  It is probably better to add in the word "stock" in that phrase somewhere for those that aren't readily aware of their contextual surroundings.  "Chinese stocks are being trash" etc...  

 

A template example of hostility you noted is:

On 6/24/2021 at 8:02 AM, rddad said:

I don't think we should ever say, "If you think *insert reason*, you should not watch this show or be part of this community."

It seems highly plausible that this person was being ironic.  It is highly unlikely that someone wants to disbar someone from this day trading community for personal preferences.  If they weren't being ironic, then we need to know what they actually said in context. 

 

There are many reasons why someone should probably not be a part of the community.

If you hate day trading, you probably shouldn't watch the show or be a part of the community. 

If you hate making money, you probably shouldn't watch the show or be a part of the community.

If you hate looking at moving rectangles, you probably shouldn't watch the show or be a part of the community.

Sometimes this is merited, so yes, there is sometimes reasons to say this.  Like any conversation with our fellow humans, that doesn't mean their statement is compulsory.  If it was, then it would be a concern.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 8:50 AM, pptom said:

Beyond disappointing and jarring to see people react with more venom when someone is clearly being affected by racially charged rhetoric.

It's not racially charged, even the poster said that themselves. 

The OP literally said, "Having said that I understand that "Chinese" can refer both to the country or the people."

Racially charged means that it was inspired by race.  This was deliberately outlined as talking about the Chinese country's stocks.   This is an inaccurate and divisive reply. 

 

On 7/8/2021 at 8:22 AM, KyleK29 said:

I do see how people may find the "Chinese Trash" comment to be offensive. It's important to not shrug that off as just people being overly sensitive - communication by nature is made up of sender and receiver. The sender may not provide all the information (assumes the receiver has the info or can perceive the info, like the context), and/or the receiver may not receive all of the information correctly (preconceived bias, focus, noise, etc.). So someone that's selectively listening may hear that, not understand the message's implied context and take it as calling Chinese people trash

A message sent  != a message received.

Let me say that you are a great moderator for listening to these concerns.

It is VERY important to recognize that all of the context that OP needed is inherently in the day trading chatroom. 

It must be sought out by the OP to see if the obvious context (talking about Chinese stocks) was not actually the correct context. 

We should have an inclusive community, we do.  I agree that we should foster that.  Saying the words Chinese Trash instead of Chinese Stock Trash has significantly higher chances of creating friction in the chatroom.

 

On the other hand... Andrew Aziz has said so so so so many times,  that those that have had problems with incredibly questionable fills from their broker or incorrect quotes from DAS should not pursue legal action because they are "being dramatic" etc...  Yes, he has said this.  No if ands or buts.  He has said this, and has gotten better about not saying it.  (Probably better to not mention it in his position at all) THIS is contextually egregious behavior.

We are in a day trading chatroom.  If an individual is having their money taken from them by faulty service from their broker or platform (with proof), they should be heard. 

That is where a prudent moderator steps in a says "Hey (boss) you are not qualified to make this statement because you are in a position of influence, and due to your business status you could be legally held accountable for that statement in lieu of your company's affiliation with DAS and Interactive Brokers."  Which is true.  This kind of language actually is contextually a concern.

[Bailey Nevener 83]

On 7/2/2021 at 8:50 AM, pptom said:

Modern [country] politics marked by authoritarianism do not define [country] or its complex socio-cultural identity that spans millennia.

Incorrect. 

China's acts on the world stage do not define Chinese people.   

However, they do define China. 

 

Just like we should judge people on who they are now, not who they were in the past.

We should judge China on what it is now, not who they were in the past. 

 

The premise of this argument is not a political statement.  Replace China with any country.  As a matter of fact I will.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Bailey Nevener

[Bailey Nevener 83]

6 hours ago, Roberto said:

I see moderation crew has been removing legit criticism without public statement.

Nice.

What was your criticism?

[pptom 1]

4 minutes ago, Bailey Nevener said:

It's not racially charged, even the poster said that themselves. 

The OP literally said, "Having said that I understand that "Chinese" can refer both to the country or the people."

Racially charged means that it was inspired by race.  This was deliberately outlined as talking about the Chinese country's stocks.   This is an inaccurate and divisive reply. 

What do you mean "inspired by race"? That description reeks of ambiguity. Something can still be racially charged or racially divisive regardless of the author's intention, especially if you take into consideration the current political climate. (Notice I intentionally said "racially charged" as opposed to "racist" and did not use the term as an euphemism for the latter; see here about the ongoing discussion on race-related terminology, among other sources.) 

And speaking of accuracy, why not just admit that "Chinese trash" is neither accurate nor appropriate? There are literally plenty of alternatives. This is the part I find most mind boggling; that several people here have an immediate and clearly irresistible urge to defend the use of a problematic term at all cost, rather than engage in constructive conversation. Glad to see that the moderator stood up to the task and handled it well.

[Bailey Nevener 83]

 

26 minutes ago, pptom said:

What do you mean "inspired by race"? That description reeks of ambiguity. Something can still be racially charged or racially divisive regardless of the author's intention, especially if you take into consideration the current political climate. (Notice I intentionally said "racially charged" as opposed to "racist" and did not use the term as an euphemism for the latter; see here about the ongoing discussion on race-related terminology, among other sources.) 

And speaking of accuracy, why not just admit that "Chinese trash" is neither accurate nor appropriate? There are literally plenty of alternatives. This is the part I find most mind boggling; that several people here have an immediate and clearly irresistible urge to defend the use of a problematic term at all cost, rather than engage in constructive conversation. Glad to see that the moderator stood up to the task and handled it well.

Wow.  I guess we are doing this.  Let me walk you through this sudoku puzzle of "ambiguity" resolved.

It is only racially charged if an individual has no context, which by default they do because we are in a day trading chatroom.

It is nationally charged if an individual has context, which by default they do because we are in a day trading chatroom.

 

Charged in this context is defined as, "capable of arousing strong emotion". 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charged

 

It is only capable of racially arousing strong emotion if the individual is ignoring context.

If it is in context, then it is capable of "nationally" arousing strong emotion.

 

"Chinese trash" was not directed towards race.  There was a contextually obvious direction towards the nation of China.

In this example the word "Chinese", turned into a phrase "Chinese nation" is a homonym of "Chinese people". 

You can find the definition of a homonym here.

So right off the bat this is a Fallacy of Equivocation.

 

So I was correct in saying that it wasn't racially charged because:

1. In context it is only capable of eliciting strong emotions towards the nation of China.

2. It was referring to the Chinese nation.  Not a race.   That is the Fallacy of Equivocation.

 

And I DO agree that it is better to not use this phrase because it only exposes us to this conversation!  It is better to be friendly and thoughtful!

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Bailey Nevener

[Bailey Nevener 83]

On 7/2/2021 at 8:50 AM, pptom said:

Modern Chinese politics marked by authoritarianism do not define China or its complex socio-cultural identity that spans millennia. 

China's political history that eyes-crossed-and-mouth-drooling* "spans a millennia" is imperialistic and authoritarian, so which should we define them by their present or past? 

Both are the same.  Have you ever heard of the word dynasty?  Or would you like some hyperlinks I can provide do your research for you? 

Every country has a "complex socio-cultural identity" and yet we still can define them based on their past and present.  

Defending the --------------------> country <-------------- of China is a losing battle.  Defending the people is not a losing battle.  I hope for them to be liberated.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Bailey Nevener

[pptom 1]

You have devised a hodge-podge definition sprinkled with seemingly unrelated terminology (fallacy of equivocation, for example, has no place in the context of my original post) to make it sound legitimate. What's worse, you continue to miss my point (speaking of fallacies, red herring might be more fitting) and relentlessly try to prove that the author's intent somehow makes it impossible for the term "Chinese trash" to be offensive. If a person of Chinese origin sees it as such, it is no place of yours to prove otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is all about mutual respect, rather than a combative attempt to convince everyone that your singular reading of this situation is absolutely correct. If you still want to respond, may I suggest you do so directly and outside of this thread.

[Bailey Nevener 83]

11 hours ago, pptom said:

You have devised a hodge-podge definition sprinkled with seemingly unrelated terminology (fallacy of equivocation, for example, has no place in the context of my original post) to make it sound legitimate. 

That's not an argument.  Yes the Fallacy of Equivocation is extremely cohesive contextually in picking apart your argument.

 

11 hours ago, pptom said:

 What's worse, you continue to miss my point (speaking of fallacies, red herring might be more fitting) and relentlessly try to prove that the author's intent somehow makes it impossible for the term "Chinese trash" to be offensive. 

I didn't say it was impossible for them to see it as offensive, see Straw Man Fallacy.  I said that they could only see it as offensive if they ignored the context.  Why did I even bold anything?  Clearly you TLDR often.

 

11 hours ago, pptom said:

If a person of Chinese origin sees it as such, it is no place of yours to prove otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is all about mutual respect, rather than a combative attempt to convince everyone that your singular reading of this situation is absolutely correct.

If a person takes something out of context to get angry at it, they are wrong for doing so.  That is no good for anyone.  The context is obvious for someone that is aware of their surroundings.  Such as a day trading chatroom.

 

11 hours ago, pptom said:

 If you still want to respond, may I suggest you do so directly and outside of this thread.

If you want to respond, may I suggest you address the actual argument haha.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Bailey Nevener

[Norm 46]

On 7/11/2021 at 8:50 AM, Roberto said:

I see moderation crew has been removing legit criticism without public statement.

Nice.

No, I removed that comment because it started venturing into US politics and I didn't want this thread to go down that wormhole. It was also not relevant to the conversation.

[soulavenger8 2]

I'm a Singaporean Chinese and i dun find tt term "chinese trash" insulting or racist probably becos i know is referring to many of the chinese stocks trading on the stock exchange.

However, i have also never experienced any racist incidents the OP could have experienced before so "chinese trash" doesn't elicit the same response for me as OP's.

I can understand his POV