Yes, absolutely. In fact I believe that is exactly why they are doing it. When non-Japanese people come in, they don’t understand the unwritten cultural rules and expectations, they don’t have a great grasp of the language… it can be a challenge to serve people like that when everyone else just conforms implicitly. And when those people are a microscopic part of the population, that makes every interaction with them a rare and negative experience that makes the annoyance of it seem all the worse because you are never used to it. And the value of each interaction for that restaurant owner’s annoyance is a single meal served, so it isn’t worth it to them from that perspective.

I’m not saying I don’t understand that perspective. I do, 100%. But that’s not the only perspective here. The foreigner has a perspective and an experience too. That mindset of the restaurant owner, of protecting your personal comfort for one interaction, is a common one. That means that it’s not just this restaurant for this foreigner that they’re not welcome. It means that the would-be patron is denied in numerous interactions, services, and maybe even a livlihood. As are every other foreigner. Your personal comfort over one interaction shouldn’t outweigh that.

Think about Jim Crow laws. Why were they wrong? “Oh so you can’t eat at this diner. Big deal. He has a right to not serve you if he doesn’t want to.” For you it is just this diner, and you are choosing for yourself who to serve. For the black community, it was every diner, every bus, ever water fountain, redlined neighborhoods, sundown towns… it creates a cultural class system, a constant obstacle to participate in and succeed in society, and systematically holds one group down while proping up the class in power. The inequality is a problem, no matter your personal choice about your own business.

Again, I can understand why it may be a personal challenge for them and how they would rather just avoid that entirely. But it is still xenophobic/racist and still effects the object of their prejudice far greater than themselves. I don’t think it is right. And I think, if and when their demographics start to become less homogenous, there will be a major civil rights movement in Japan similar to the US’s and it will be a struggle. I’d rather see those in their culture start to recognize their xenophobia now, and begin to make efforts to correct it before the problem is bigger than it needs to be when that time comes.

I am not generalizing people based on genetic traits, race, etc. I’m talking about the culture of a broad society. It is a documented systemic issue and sociological observation. Like saying that Victorian era people in the UK were sexually repressed. There is nothing intrinsic to Victorians that made them that way, and it certainly didn’t apply to everyone. But that was absolutely a significant part of the culture at the time.

X people are A. Y people can’t B. Z people are worse than C people. Where X, Y, and Z are races or racial traits, these are racist statements because they attribute intrinsic qualities to a racial group, or comparatively qualify there human value. Stating a fact of sociology can often be used to erroneously support such a racist statement. It is justifiable to feel uneasy about it for that reason. But the sociological fact isn’t racist in itself.

Being xenophobic in a culture where the differences between people is very small and nuanced is very common and part of human nature. Tribalism is an evolutionary adaptation that gave our ancestors an advantage when resource scarcity was a bigger issue. But it’s not needed anymore like it once was. And it takes cognitive effort to overcome that impulse. The more diverse that Japan becomes over time, the less xenophobia they will become. It is not a problem with Japanese people as a race. It is a consequence of their general isolation from regular, direct contact with other cultures and people.

No that’s him at the beginning in his parents’ room playing with his talk man instead of packing for the trip. Thus the open suit case (his parents are packing).

One can be forgiven for confusing them though. They are weirdly similar. Like Trump’s interior designer and The McCallisters shopped at the same store. Or like the same set designer did both (cuz they did).

Almost identical 4 post queen size bed, similar color and busy pattern of wallpaper, mirrored lamps and framed pictures on either side of the bed, the pictures have similar sizes and frame thickness, the placement of the door, the placement of the TVs, the table at the foot of the bed (though the latter is a room service food cart). Even filmed at a similar angle, which makes me wonder if these similarities were intentional for some reason. The biggest difference is the bedspread colors.

I doubt it is ai. The same room with the fireplace can be seen in both the picture featuring it and the hallway shot where it is barely in view, but the same furniture, blinds, rug, wall molding, etc. is visible in both. The apparent discrepancy in dimensions is likely the focal length on the lenses used.

The last shot is from the sequel. Same house still. But I don’t think that the after shot is necessarily the same room. The windows and fireplace placement doesnt line up.

I do not care for the stark white walls everywhere. I don’t hate the monochrome, though, so long as there is still some mid-tones to break things up a bit. In my opinion, stark white should be used minimally, like for trim, the fireplace mantle, stair steps/railing, etc. More grays on the walls, more variety in tones. And then the occasional accent piece that has a a bright saturated color to it, or a warm tone, will stand out like crazy in the space and provide a distinct feel to the room.

I don’t love the busy repeating wallpaper patterns in the original, but overall it has a very warm comfortable esthetic to it. Neither esthetic is bad. But I think the original was more cohesive and homey than the latter.

Bro is arguing that Emma Watson isn’t a beautiful woman. Not the hill I’d die on.

The “centrist”/right-leaning/neo-liberal democrats would rather rip the party in half than to use this swell of popular support for leftist ideals to win elections and make real change. The old Dems will flail and writhe and hurt themselves in confusion as the old guard dies and change happens whether they like it or not. They’ll try to kick leftists out, jump ship themselves (going independent, forming a new third party, merging with libertarians, or maybe going all the way to going Republican), and bomb the entire party with infighting, fixing nominations with anti-democratic party tricks, and intentionally letting republicans win rather than supporting a socialist candidate. Can’t wait for this cluster fuck.

I feel like these people are ignoring the context that most people in Japan are racist as fuck. It is more xenophobia (fear of outsiders/foreigners) than about physical traits or racial stereotypes like you see in the US, for example. For the most part, anyway.

It is not necessarily a fomented hatred for foreigners as much as it is a strong aversion against non-conformity. Modern Japanese culture and racial makeup is nearly homogenous, and so dealing with someone that doesn’t fit into that monolithic culture, doesn’t speak the language fluently, or is physically very different, etc. is a discomfort that many find annoying, scary, or anxiety inducing. Some to the point that they choose only to serve or interact with native Japanese people.

But it not being about hatred, per se, doesn’t really change the fact that, if you look different in Japan, you don’t speak fluent Japanese, you have an accent, etc. you’ll get treated worse. They regularly deny “foreigners”/“gaijin” (often including born-and-raised mixed-race Japanese citizens, “hāfu”) basic business services and housing. At minimum, you’ll get stares and thoughtless/ignorant questions and comments that can be very insulting. You may have trouble accessing shelter and services offered freely to native and typically appearing Japanese people. And worse, you may have legal troubles by police assuming you are a trouble maker by virtue of being different. There is a huge racial profiling problem with Japanese police.

There are not comprehensive anti-discriminatiom laws, or even a general government recognition of systemic racism, so you will likely have no legal recourse for the prejudice you would likely face there, too.

Using a flexible dryer tube for a toilet drain is… I’m gonna go with ill-advised.

“These charges are bullshit. I missed a day every once in a while. Performance anxiety.”

Don’t eat the lotuses in Schenectady.

A fur suit. Like … OwO?

I’m sure you work somewhere where the public is allowed. Maybe a convention center or something? But I was picturing cubicles, fluorescent lighting, rolling chairs, computers, and a man in a full panther costume who goes by Space Paws

Even if it is offensive to you, having such a broad non-specific policy about denying service for “offensive” clothing is ridiculous.

Say I, a lefty, am a flight attendent. Can I deny entry to anyone wearing a MAGA hat, an anti-trans (“try to milk a bull”) t-shirt, a vaguely threatening pro-gun (“come and take it”) shirt, a fur jacket, etc? I genuinely find such things offensive. So I can kick those people out? No? Tell me what is different about that. What about someone wearing a shirt that says “Aborting kids is not healthcare”? I can’t think of a more direct and likely parallel than that. Is that too offensive to board a plane? Explain to me why not. Explain it slowly and think about your words as you do.

His shirt didn’t even specify an event, any parties to the event, or any sort of threat. It is not explicitly about any specific person or party. It is about children in general and those who would bomb them and call that warfare. It was just stating a moral stance, and a pretty low bar one at that, one that most people would agree on without any other context projected on it. Her offense was almost certainly due to a projection of meaning that she put upon it, not even the shirt itself. A meaning that she assumed was true for no reason but her own and that she found offensive due to her personal politics around the parties or events she connected it to. How can you enforce a policy broad enough to allow someone to project a specific interpretation on a non-specific phrase and consider that projected meaning offensive, thereby barring them from the plane.

If I wear a shirt that says “he did nothing wrong” with no further context, do you get to decide who “he” is and bar me from you plane because maybe I mean someone who you think did do something wrong and you are offended by the alternative view? What if I actually mean a fictional character like Thanos? What if I mean someone whom you happen agree did nothing wrong? What if it is just a shirt I got from a thrift store and it has no known meaning to me at all? You see why that is stupid as fuck?

Andy and Randy from Sex Drive?

The right against self incriminating is the 5th amendment. And he’s being charged for destroying evidence, not for not providing it. But I love the spirit.

Fuck. Off. Already.

Ba dum tss

I believe you’re right. My mistake. I misremembered that factoid.

You mean probable cause, not “probably cause”. And what you described, evading a sobriety checkpoint, gives them reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion amounts to articulable facts of observation that reasonably lead them to suspect you may be committing/have committed/were about to commit a crime (like apparently fleeing from a police breathalyzer check). It grants them the power to detain you for a reasonable time for the purposes of investigating to confirm or assuage their suspicion.

Probable cause requires actual evidence that a specific crime has been committed, that you committed it, and that evidence is secured. It is the standard needed to A) arrest you or issue a warrant for your arrest, and B) issue a search warrant for your property if evidence connects it to the crime in question in order to gather more evidence. (Note: They may do an inventory search of your person if arrested, and an inventory search of your vehicle if towed due to your arrest. This is limited in scope. A full search requires a warrant.)

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause.

They’d only be doing it when they have a big suspicion of something, at least you’d hope.

Nope. They often do it entirely randomly. I’ve seen videos of them pulling over multiple vehicles to be searched simultaneously at a crossing before.