Labor is cheap in China. It’s not racism to make factually accurate observations.

>It’s not racism to make factually accurate observations.

That is not as true as it sounds at first glance. For example, a statement like "blacks are more violent and less educated than whites" is factually accurate, but frames the situation in a definitely racist way if you just leave it at that because without elaboration, it makes it sound like a fact of nature.

This is the problem with "facts and statistics can't be racist". No, technically they can't be, but if your conclusion you're drawing is that certain ethnicities are just genetically more criminal, you're handling the facts in a racist (and very incorrect) way (not implying in any way that you think like that).

> That is not as true as it sounds at first glance.

No. It is exactly as true as it sounds.

The conclusions one draws from facts are whatever they are. But the facts themselves are not racist, and it is not racist to say things that are factually correct. Ever. Full stop.

Also it’s ok to be white. Saying that it’s ok to be white is not racist.

Facts themselves are not racist. The person uttering them can be.

It's creepy to say irrelevant weird things, though.

If we consider stating facts without context needed to truly understand them as being equal on level of wrongness with something like discrimination, I think we should consider exactly how many people use such poorly informed facts. Gun crime facts, wage gap facts, just about any psychology paper cited ignores the limitations of the study (which likely has very few if any replications with different populations). Even medical research if filled with poorly stated facts that drop a lot of the details needed to understand the actual study done.

Given that stating facts without full context is the norm, attributing one specific case to racism seems hard to justify.

For a red delicious apples to granny smith apples comparison, look at the treatment of, framing of, and treatment of framing of crime facts based on race verses crime stats based on sex.

Interesting discussion. So when is it in your opinion allowed to draw conclusions based on personal attributes, e.g. when is something not discriminating.

I try to stick to Wikipedia definition, because people claim racism in a lot of situation where I wouldn't consider it as such: "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity."

In theory, the discussed comment doesn't claim his race is superior, just stating that in China people are underpaid.

For sure he is projecting stereotypes, but that's not racism, it's a different thing.

Even the legal definition doesn't seem to make that comment fit:

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

> factually accurate observations

... in this case, it's a sarcastic quip based on an exaggerated truth.

the inferred reference you're missing is the 'all asians are good at math' stereotype.

East asians are good at math. Look at rankings by country. Obviously no one would actually do this, but if you were going to, China would be a great place to set up shop.

Youbate referring to a popular worldwide math test. There's no reason to believe those test scores aren't gamed, especially in Communist China where information is highly censored in general and the known "sampled" locations where the tests are given is highly suspect

You shouldn't project your own stereotypes onto other people. China is the current king of labor-intensive low-cost mass production