Last night I went to a parent-teacher conference at my son’s school. The teacher, who has thirty years experience as a teacher at all grade levels and has taught students who have smashed through their testing (especially in math…Jesus Christ), went through the curriculum to educate us parents on our kids’ progress. Even at the kindergarten level, the kids learn math, science, Chinese poetry, physical education, and reading/writing. “But,” she said, “the most important subject we teach is social studies. In social studies, they learn about world history, accepting different cultures, being open-minded to knowledge, and getting along with others. Working together is something that they’ll keep forever. In social studies, they learn to treat each other with respect and to take care of one another. This is the most important lesson I can teach them.” It reminded me of the title of that famous book: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.

As I’ve learned through 5+ years of blogging, however, not everyone in the blogosphere went to the same kind of kindergarten. Or maybe certain people went to kindergarten but just found the lessons too difficult to learn. There are anonymous guys on this blog who think that it’s cool to dig shit up on women members and to attack them with sexist remarks. There are guys who pull up unsubstantiated statements about people, and there are men who harass women. Even after being called on it, some of these guys continue to act like anonymous tough guys. Here’s an anonymous dude right here who, safely behind his anonymous user name, attacked one of our longtime members with a comment on her looks, totally unprovoked and (really, by most people’s eyes) wrong. His quote:

Second if you are public and make such claims you are open for scrutiny.

Well, dude, where I come from, we espouse the values that King so eloquently describes:

My general rule of thumb is that a poster who cannot point us to his own Facebook page photos should not comment on the attractiveness of people who are brave enough to display their photos. If you want to complain about a woman’s looks, then show your own face first.

It’s general fair play, rules of conduct that most of us learn in kindergarten. I want people to come public. I want people/commenters, if they feel comfortable, to stand up and take ownership of their words. I don’t complain if people don’t want to do that–stuff you post online stays there forever, and I don’t expect people to necessarily want to claim their participation. Some of the best commenters here are anonymous. But I won’t stand silent while the cowards try to malign and harass those who are brave enough to display their photos with their real identity. I won’t stand silent while anonymous sexists try to silence good, strong Asian women.

After blogging 5+ years under the most tolerant kind of policy, I’m changing course. I’m invoking the Anonymous Coward Rule. I’m tired of people who don’t hold themselves to the same rule of conduct and respect that general Universal Morality holds as a given. I’m tired of it, and the valuable and good longtime commenters here are tired of it too. The valued and good members here know who they are. For the rest of you, if you get on our shit list by being a dick or by conducting yourself in a manner unbecoming of a general commenter, you don’t belong here. I’m sorry for all the anonymous jerks who enjoy attacking people behind the internet, but this is still an activist site where we share ideas and try to build people up, not a site where we smear the courageous while hiding behind an anonymous screen name. We’re raising the bar, and if you don’t meet the new standard, then you shouldn’t be commenting here.

No related posts.

Hey Everyone,

Just wanted to drop a quick note to let you all know that I’m back from a one month vacation. I went to Penang, Malaysia (mostly) with a side trip to Thailand. It was a family vacation, and I got to hang out with a lot of the family. I just got back a few hours ago and am working through jetlag.

You may have noticed that my posting frequency dropped while I was gone (well, actually it was nil since some of the old stuff was on timer.) I hope that we’ll be back to the normal posting frequency very soon. I read four books during the vacation, so I should still have a lot to say about at least a few of the books. I missed a few big Asian American news items–David Wu has resigned as Congressman. Hideki Irabu committed suicide. Really sad in both cases (although sadder in Irabu’s case).

I also wanted to say thanks to you for being here. I read a book called “Do You” by Russell Simmons (which I’ll talk about later), and he talks about enjoying the process of creating and finding an audience. I noticed that mainstream American movies and music have a worldwide audience, but for right now it looks like the audience for Asian American stuff is all right here on the web. Someday the audience will be broader, but until that time, thank you for reading and contributing to the dialog.

No related posts.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/BigWOWO/146680088737761

If you’re in the mood, click “Like.” I know the WOWO blog mostly has anonymous commenters, but if you want updates on your FB, feel free to join. I’ll admit that I have no idea what the benefit of a Facebook page is, but I’m thinking that maybe we can make it a place where people can share articles outside of what goes up on the blog. If anyone has any other ideas, feel free to share. Also, feel free to pass this along.

Related posts:

1. Sam Yoon: bigWOWO's Fundraising Page
2. bigWOWO Fall Break and Things You Should See
3. bigWOWO's Rating System

Related posts:

1. Upcoming Podcasts
2. Some of the stuff I'm working on

I’m making a change to the Review categories.  From now on, I’m going to break down the works I review by category, particularly between “popular fiction” and “literary fiction.”  After a couple years of writing reviews, I realize that it’s unfair to compare literary fiction with popular fiction–they’re too different from one another to be in the same category.  While there is a hierarchy in terms of literary quality, I don’t think there is necessarily a hierarchy in terms of enjoyment; I enjoyed “The Godfather” much more than I enjoyed “Adam Bede,” and the Godfather arguably did more to promote Italian American cross-cultural understanding than any work of literary fiction.

So from now on, instead of “Asian American Gold,” you’ll see “Popular Fiction Gold” or “Literary Fiction Gold.”  If you have any other suggestions, feel free to put them below in the comment section.

Related posts:

1. The Future of Books
2. Fill in Our Future
3. A Thousand Years of Good Prayers by Yiyun Li (Review)

David Duke

A “doppelganger,” in the game Dungeons and Dragons, is a monster that changes shapes to mimic other humanoid creatures.  In the X-men, the same kind of creature is called a shapeshifter.  On the internet, a doppelganger is one who pretends to be someone that he or she is not.  It is a form of troll.  On Asian American sites, common doppelgangers tell people that they’re Asian when they really aren’t.

In 1973, David Duke, the famous Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote a book called “African Atto,” a self defense manual for African American militants.  He wrote it under the pseudonym “Mohammed X.”  According to some reports, he did this in order to collect the names and addresses of black militants for future Klan usage.  Others say he was just trying to make a quick buck from black people.  I bet his racist heart got a kick out of that.

We’ve got a racist doppelganger on this site too.  He calls himself Chris and has claimed to be an Asian woman.  His story quickly fell apart when John Doe and mT started prodding (good work btw guys).  I don’t understand all the motivations of such racists, but I think they are vying for attention.  In their minds they see themselves as being above us and able to easily outsmart us.  Plus, they see our struggles and our humanity as trivial.  It’s just a game to them.  But let’s not take our eye off the ball–they are racist.  Their reason for acting as they do rests on their superiority complexes.  Just as David Duke took pleasure in making money from the very people against whom he committed his acts of racism and violence, so do racist doppelgangers enjoy playing with minority Asians.

Let me update my comment policy once again.  Doppelganging is not allowed.  You don’t have to tell all details of your life, but if you’re a non-Asian boy, don’t claim to be an Asian girl.  Sock puppets–when one person takes two user names in order to double the force of his or her own voice–are also not allowed.  Both of these tricks are deceitful and cowardly.  You don’t have to come forward with your identity in order to post here, but don’t claim to be something you’re not in order to lend more credence to your ideas.  People on this site (most of all me) don’t have time to play stupid games.

Related posts:

1. John Mayer and his "David Duke cock"

Related posts:

1. My Older Person's 44s Post
2. Assembling the Team and 2010 Resolutions
3. Last Post of 2008: Resolutions, Pt. 2.

So some recommendations and UFC predictions before I go:

Recommendations:

1. Check out Frank Chow’s Trans-Atlantic Throwdown podcast.   He and Paddy K recorded a podcast–and I think it’s a double-ender (two mics recording on two computers and then merged).  As of this writing, only one episode has come out, but it was a good episode.  I’m a boring drinker–just give me a Guinness and I’m happy, but beer afficionados ought to like the more in-depth discussion on alcohol.  They also talk a bit about economics and the recession, which is on most peoples’ minds these days.  Give it a listen.  It’s free, and it’s on iTunes!

2.  Check out Hugo Schwyzer’s blog that focuses on feminism and fatherhood.  I’ve been enjoying his pieces on Bob Guccione, politics and friendships, and ex-lovers.  He’s got an interesting take on life.

bigWOWO fight predictions:

1. UFC 122: Marquardt vs. Okami: This is probably the worst card in UFC history–but it’s FREE on Spike, so thank God for bad cards!  The winner of the title fight gets to fight the winner of Silva/Belfort–probably Silva.  Okami is just as boring as Chael Sonnen, but I hope he wins.  Why?  Because it’s only fair.  Sonnen and Marquardt both got their shots, and Okami should get his too.  Besides, he’s the last guy to have beaten Silva (albeit by disqualification).  After seeing how Sonnen pulled the lay-and-pray on Marquardt, I’m predicting that Okami will do the same.  Okami by decision.

2. UFC 123: Rampage vs. Machida: The title fight is going to be great–my favorite fighter (Machida) vs. my favorite trash talker (Rampage).  Machida’s got the better technicals, but Rampage hits really hard when he connects.  I’d normally give the edge to Machida, but it’s hard to tell–his confidence may have been shaken from that last fight with Rua.  Still, I gotta believe.  Machida back to his elusive, don’t-get-hit style, wins by decision.

Hughes vs. Penn rubber match: Hughes used to be my least favorite fighter, and Penn used to be my favorite.  Hughes made me a fan during his last fight, and Penn lost me as a fan during his last fight.  I’m not going to get too emotionally invested in this.  Penn could win if he wanted to, but I think Hughes will win by decision because Penn, once again, will be too lazy to train.

They’ve got some good up-and-comers on this card too, including Sotiropoulos and Munoz (who is on the Spike card).  Should be fun to watch.

Related posts:

1. bigWOWO's Predictions for UFC 112
2. If No One is Present to Hear a Tree Fall…
3. B.J. Penn disappoints

You all know the reason I blog.  I blog for the comments. I blog for people who can set me straight, tell me where I’m wrong, encourage me when I’m right, introduce me to new ideas and ways of thinking, etc.  bigWOWO is almost two years old, and as far as I can remember, we’ve never deleted or moderated any comments.  I hope that tradition continues.  And yet we’ve grown big enough–and diverse enough–that we finally have to have a comment policy.  People have been complaining in the past few days about certain trends on this blog, and I wanted to step in and say something before it becomes a problem.

So here’s the new rule–any obtrusive and unsubstantiated beliefs need to stay in topic-specific blog posts about those obtrusive and unsubstantiated beliefs.  I’m saying this specifically because of HBD, so-called Human Biodiversity, aka modern day racism, but it applies to other obtrusive and unsubstantiated comments on other topics too.  If you want to promote HBD, please keep them in the blog posts that focus specifically on HBD (1 and 2).  This policy also applies to other outlandish and unproven beliefs, such as Falun Gong and fundamentalist Islam/Christianity.  This includes not just the text in your comments but also links to other blogs that might be making obtrusive and unsubstantiated comments.

We have a classic Tragedy of the Commons dilemma. WOWO is a public space for intellectuals to communicate and bond, and as such, we need to maintain a culture that promotes our mission–Asian American intellectualism and activism. We’ve always welcomed diversity–although we’re an Asian American blog, we have commenters of all races, genders, and political backgrounds.  We need to maintain a culture where people of all races, genders, and political backgrounds can feel free to open up and share.  We can’t allow others to assail our readership with obtrusive and unsubstantiated statements.  We need to protect this public space.

Now what is the definition of “obtrusive and unsubstantiated?”

“Obtrusive” describes a statement that attacks or makes a statement about another commenter or another commenter’s heritage or family.  Let’s take HBD as an example: if AOR says that “blacks on average are not as smart as whites,” it’s obtrusive to African Americans and people with African American friends/family, even if it’s not directed at a specific African American.

“Unsubstantiated” describes a statement that can’t be substantiated.  An example of this would be the same statement that blacks on average are not as smart as whites.  In the AOR podcast, for example, AOR tried to back up his statement that blacks on average are less intelligent by claiming that the poorest Whites outscore the richest blacks on the SATs.  We later found out via a link that he himself provided that this was inaccurate (although second tier lower class whites did outscore the richest blacks).  AOR also claimed that blacks are genetically unable to close the IQ gap, although within the same podcast he himself said that the IQ test racially disparity did in fact shrink after civil rights.  He admitted that there was no conclusive proof, but he said that scientists in China were working on it.  Until these scientists find proof then, we have to consider such statements unsubstantiated.

In order for a comment to be deemed unfit for standard commentary, a comment has to meet both criteria–obtrusive AND unsubstantiated.  One or the other is okay; both is not.

So you can make an unsubstantiated comment.  An example of this would be a person sharing his un-provable Christianity by saying, “This is what I believe and how I live” and doesn’t go trying to convert people with threats of fire and brimstone.  Such comments are unobtrusive and are therefore allowed anywhere.  It’s perfectly fine when Kobu, for example, shares his beliefs.

You can make an obtrusive but substantiated comment too, by saying, for example, that you think Asian guys are less aggressive with women than White guys and then telling a personal anecdote.  Urb4n is a master of this when he criticizes Asian men, and he’s usually good by stating that it’s his observation, not a genetic fact.  Empathy also goes a long way in justifying obtrusive comments.

But if your comment is both obtrusive and unsubstantiated, please either keep it in the Falun Gong thread or either or the two HBD threads or any other topic-specific thread.

One last note regarding symmetry–AOR brought up an EXCELLENT point in one of the HBD threads.  He said that while there is no proof of HBD, there is also no proof of equality.  I responded that even though the trends pointed towards equality, AOR was technically right–we haven’t proven equality.  I then said that the burden of proof, however, was on him to prove the inferiority of a race if he were to describe that inferiority as a fact.  He called BS on me:

Your sanctimonious harping on “burden of proof” is nonsensical and illogical. Why can’t you apply the same burden of proof to sociologists and writers who operate on the equality assumption? Please. If you want to play double standards, then OK.

Of course “assumption” is not the same as “assertion.”  These equality writers assume equality rather than assert it, which is not something that HBD proponents do.

Still, he makes a good point.  “Burden of proof” is a valid concept, but it’s a concept that is cultural.  In America, for example, one is innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  Such may not be the case in other countries, such as Malaysia, where a Chinese guy under investigation may have to prove his innocence or face trouble.  In America, when one imposes one’s beliefs on another person, the burden of proof falls on the imposer, not the imposed.  That’s not the case if you’re living under the rule of the Taliban, but here in America, our society accepts that the burden of proof rests on the one making the motion.

Since this is an activism blog, we’re already against negative thinking–and HBD, with it’s focus on how dumb one race is, how immoral another is, how beta another is, and how certain countries have genetic limitations on how far they can go–is a negative belief system.  It’s all about “limitations.”  But more to the point, we’re also an American blog, and therefore we retain the American way (and Buddhist way, since we’ve got lots of Buddhists) that gives people the benefit of the doubt and places the burden of proof on the accuser and categorizer, rather than the accused or the object of categorization.  This would be true of the HBD proponent who believes that blacks are inferior, the same way it would apply to the evangelist who preaches that non-believers are going to Hell.

So that’s the new comment policy.  Obtrusive and unsubstantiated views must remain in their topic-specific threads, and when two unsubstantiated views clash, the burden of proof is on the accuser and categorizer, not the accused or the categorized.

Thank you all for understanding and working with this new policy.  If you have any questions or comments about this policy, sound off below like a WOWO.

Related posts:

1. Podcast: bigWOWO and the Asian American Movement Blog
2. bigWOWO's Editorial Policy: Fair, But Not Always Balanced
3. Winnovative's Innovative Fantabulinnovative Blog

We’re trying something new right now.  If you posted a comment in the last 24 hours, we’ll get it back.  Thanks for your patience.

Also, if you’ve registered before, would it be too much to ask to re-register?  Sorry about that.

Other than that, post below if you have any issues, and we’ll try to get to work on resolving them.

Edit, 6:20 pm PT: We can make this collaborative.  Is there anything that you’d like to see on this site?  If so, post below.  I just re-added the blog feed, and it looks like Feedburner is a bit different from what it used to be–probably better, but also harder to figure out.  I hope you’re all still subscribed.  It looks like it cut 75% of you all, but the explanation says that that should fix itself eventually.

Related posts:

1. Admin notes/thanks!
2. Site Announcements/Reminders
3. Site News