Monday, March 14, 2011

A Defense of Alexandra Wallace

There is nothing more dangerous than defending witches. When the community has decided that someone needs burning, defending the accused inevitably leads to charges of complicity. Witch hunts divide the community between witch and hunter, and I fear this post will put me in the former category.

For those who aren’t aware, Alexandra Wallace ranted about how annoying Asians were in the library. The Asian Pacific Coalition summarized the video here here. And then a firestorm of rage descended on her from all parts of the internet. The video was taken down as being “hate speech,” and thousands of people expressed their hatred of the “blonde bitch” who posted a “f*ckin racist video”. People have called for UCLA to expel her for posting this YouTube video, “I'm actually disgusted... please KICK her out,” others spoke with satisfaction about how her life was now ruined. One even took humor in the thought of her turning to a life doing porn, “ten bucks says she ruined her life and now turns to porn Hahahaha.”

There’s the background. Now let me ask you some questions:

Have you ever thought of yourself as better than another group? If you are human, you probably came across someone today who offended you. And there’s a good change that the first thing that went through your head was something along the lines of “Stupid Men/ Women/ Old People/Young People/ Republicans/ Democrats/ Christians/ Atheists/ Blacks/ Whites/ Asians” or whatever demographic the offender happened to be a part of. And if it didn’t happen today, go back far enough and you’ll find a time.

For all you college-educated, do you always treat high-school dropouts as your equals? Have you ever in your life complained about how the ‘uneducated’ voters made a dumb decision? Do you ignore homeless people more often than you do people with UCLA sweaters? Do you know the name of the maid who cleans your building? Have you ever had a conversation with the people who cut the grass?

Racism is bad. Sure. But it’s just a special kind of bigotry. Is “thinking differently about a person because of their race” morally different from “thinking differently about a person because of their class/education”? We are all guilty of bigotry. And that’s why we love Alexandra Wallace. Because we can lay on her all of our own sins.

Two thousand years ago, a woman had been caught cheating on her husband. Her punishment was as severe as could be meted out: she would be thrown into a pit, and the community would throw rocks at her until she died of brain trauma or internal blood loss. There was a popular young teacher present, and the crowed asked his opinion. The evidence was against her, and the law was clear. They expected him to reject the woman and proceed with the stoning, or reject the law. But instead, the man did neither. He stood up and proclaimed, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The words shocked the crowd. After a few minutes of stunned silence, one of the older men dropped the stone that he would have used to bash in the woman’s skull and he walked away. Then another dropped his stone. And another. Finally it was just the teacher and the woman. He asked her, “Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” He said to her, with warmth and compassion, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

Alexandra Wallace has sinned. She has committed the unforgivable sin: racism, and she is presently being stoned to death by hypocrites. They are filled with self-righteous anger at this filthy sinner and, as if hoping to cleanse their own conscience, they fling stones. They can stone her to death with stones of shame and then go home self-righteously satisfied that they destroyed something evil. But they have only concealed the darkness which remains in their own hearts.


  1. The comments board is open. For you who disagree, with what do you disagree?

  2. I wish she knew ... In anger do not sin... could have avoided all this trouble.

  3. I would say that being offended by a particular person which we categorize into a group is different than what she has done.
    From the video, I felt there were more underline racial undertones than a simple stereotype that the public blew out of proportion. This is a person that believes that all Asian people at her school are all foreigners and have no concept of "american manners". That asian people are there to ruin all of America and everything she stands for. There is definitely more I would like to add that I took offense as an American. (i.e. All asians are foreigners, are affected by tsunami's, or are rude and don't follow rules, etc...) but I do have finals to study for. =P

    I do agree whit your statement that there is a punishment for her actions that might not entirely fit the crime. However, this also doesn't mean that she shouldn't face up to the consequences of her actions. Yes, in this country we do have freedom of speech (which is one of the greatest things about this country) but that also means people who happen to take offense have the same right as she does. Sadly in her case, she is slightly outnumbered. So, I pray for her family and everyone she knows because though she claims this rant wasn't about her friends, I feel that they might be more affected by it than she initially realized.


  5. I would defend Alexandra Wallace, too, but on different points.

    Sounds like you're arguing that because racism is so prevalent, it was acceptable of her to voice her opinion.

    Well, racism is prevalent, but that does not make it ok. I feel that she should've thought carefully about what she had to say, and more carefully about posting that, especially with her face and identity attached to it (it was on Facebook).

    Therein lies the danger. Yeah everyone's entitled to their own ignorant/hateful/racist/stereotypical opinions. Hell, there's worse stuff out there than she had to say (imagine if she talked about an exboyfriend or something with smaller genitals!). BUT she shouldn't have posted it that video. A blog like this? Fine, who cares?

    But by subscribing her identity to her opinion--just made it too easy for the world (indeed, especially the one of Asian Americans) to hate her. And now she must face repercussions, not just for the content (like you and I agree, many people are guilty of thinking similarly hateful things, and worse) but for the post.

    So, again, her only mistake was not making the post anonymous. Imagine if everyone's thoughts were played it on a video blog on YouTube--it'd be a shitshow, and I bet that Alexandra's would hardly stand out.

    She's only guilty of not foreseeing these drastic repercussions. If people want to address racism, that's fine. But she shouldn't be condemned because she said what everyone else is thinking.

  6. A surprisingly unbiased and well thought out response, considering the mob mentality that seems overwhelming at present.

    A counterpoint, though....

    To remain quiet while evil acts are committed is to condone those same acts. (Please forgive my penchant for the dramatic here, I am using the loosest version of the word "evil")

    I agree with your statement that we all must struggle with many forms of prejudice and bigotry, and I think that this is a poetic moment to highlight that.
    If we are to move forward as a culture, we MUST stand up and say "unacceptable" when someone breaks with our mores and attacks any of our people.
    What I would change in the reaction to this young lady is the levels of bile that we collectively threw her way. Was her crime so offensive that we wish her destroyed? I am of the opinion that she showed some ignorance, some insensitivity, and possibly a touch of entitlement issues. All of these are treatable with the right words from the right people.
    There are a thousand possible outcomes for her, I hope that learning something is the one she choses.

  7. It sounds like most of you agree with my main argument yet still disagree with my defense of her.

    "Sounds like you're arguing that because racism is so prevalent, it was acceptable of her to voice her opinion."

    Not quite. As I said, I think clearly, "Racism is bad." I'm arguing that because you are a racist (and so am I), that you (and I) should be merciful to racists.

    As you've said, "her only mistake was not making the post anonymous" and "If everyone's thoughts were played it on a video blog on YouTube--it'd be a shitshow, and I bet that Alexandra's would hardly stand out." That's my point. We've crucified this poor girl for thoughts that we all have in secret.

    Also, remember the story I told of the teacher ended with "Go and sin no more." He didn't condone the sin, but he also didn't execute the sinner.

    I also hope she learns. But with the violence and rage that is being directed at her (e.g. people have posted her physical address), I don't doubt that this may lead to an intensified hatred of Asians. In her mind previously, Asians just annoyed her; now they ruined her life.

    Isn't the degree of shame that she must bear the rest of her life enough punishment? We (the internet) worried about cyber-bullying a few months ago; does no one fear that this could lead to suicide? Will racists really be empowered by Alexandra if she is not expelled? Does mercy cease to be a virtue when the sin is racism? Do we need add middle-class excommunication (i.e. expulsion from college) to her having to wear this Scarlet Letter?

    It's hard to fight hatred with hatred.

  8. While I believe this blog brings up the most important fact that racism and bigotry are deeply wired in pretty much everyone, it is also important to note that this is what is trying to be remedied.

    The mass media will undoubtedly expose this story in the news, and its from this awareness and making an example of her that MAYBE people won't post videos outright violating someones RIGHT to be in a community.

    This was also an excellent example of displaying prudence online. I can only imagine her career in fashion was slightly derailed due to this public crucifixion.

    Unfortunately, I do not fall in your "general American" mold. I DO talk to our school janitor, landscaper, whatever. And even if I didn't go out of my way to learn a stranger's name, I didn't post a video saying "I'M COLLEGE EDUCATED AND IF YOU MOW MY LAWN YOU'RE AN IDIOT."

    Big difference between being aware of someone's name and conversing versus going out of your way to make a cultural group uncomfortable.

  9. Do we feel bad for the person who slaps a grizzly?
    This is the Internet, one of the most unforgiving place (not) on Earth. She is now a cautionary tale. Let's hope her life can give value that way.
    Kudos for defending a gentler path, but sometimes loud and nasty is the only way a lesson will stick.

  10. "people won't post videos outright violating someones RIGHT to be in a community."
    I remember the right to speech, and the right to freely assemble. When were we granted the right to not have people complain about our manners?

    "Unfortunately, I do not fall in your "general American" mold."

    Praise God!

    "Do we feel bad for the person who slaps a grizzly?"

    Yes! Sympathy is certainly justified, "Poor fool." But you're right. The Internet is an unforgiving place. But that doesn't mean we need to be unforgiving.

  11. @ David,

    I understand your analogies as a Christian myself; however, I believe the point is missed. If your analogy was correct, then no Christian sinner could ever rebuke another person. Yes, the majority of these people on the boards / youtube, were criticizing her out of anger and not love and probably had a big prejudice plank sticking out of their own eye, but I'm not sure what point the post was trying to make.

    Not sure if the 'unforgivable sin' portion was written sarcastically, but ultimately that is rejecting Christ and not racism.

  12. "If your analogy was correct"
    Do you mean John 8? I think Jesus' point was not to condone sin or prevent the criticism of it, but to condemn the self-righteousness of the hypocrites. This post had the same purpose. I wanted to communicate, "Don't be a hypocrite." Do you understand the passage differently? What is your reading of it?

    And yes, the unforgivable sin in Christian doctrine is not racism. Nevertheless, racism seems to me to be the unforgivable sin in secular society.

  13. david, i don't think you can compare adultery to blatant racism. this incidence doesn't deserve such an analogy. what she did was wrong, and that's that. why do you go to such extent to defend her? are you trying to justify your own stance on the original subject by making a case for her? your post does not only condone this behavior, but supports it. even non-christians know the difference between right and wrong. don't use religion as an excuse to promote your own agenda. you're not a member of the westboro church, are you?

  14. Oh I think he meant it quite seriously - however it is the humanist mark that is missed and clearly, forgiveness is wanting.
    Each day we try to make the future and the world understandable and predictable, most often by drawing general conclusions about varied events. But the problem is not with this process, but the application to people. Racism is a mistake, not because it generalizes, but because the generalizations are wrong.
    But why? What is it about people that make their behavior inscrutable from their appearance?
    The answer, is why it's just as bad to generalize about Asians as racists.
    Here is a long excerpt from Daniel N. Robinson, in a lecture titled “Altruism and Prejudice”:
    “Every possible ground of difference is established for purposes of making the moral judgment – where the moral judgment is going to be a negative one, where the victim is going to be blamed. Note what is never invoked, the grounds of similarity, a common humanity, a common set of aspirations, fears and purposes. The accentuation of difference, the systematic ignoring of similarity and this as a way of doing what? Well, here again we find an element of nobility, even in the most pernicious of circumstances: as an attempt to justify a set of attitudes and behaviours, a social creature at his most prejudiced, still looks for some basis upon which to justify, what finally is a judgment warranting rebuke and condemnation. The hope lies, in the fact that he seeks to justify his sins.”

    This might remind you of Shylock’s speech in Merchant of Venice (eg “hath not a Jew eyes? If you prick us, do we not bleed?”) If it does, I encourage the reading of the passage in whole, he is saying something quite different - I think it's the very thing that David rebuked.

  15. i saw a link of your article, and came to read it, i thought it would be interesting to see a defense of this video, but i didn't expect you were going to make her a magdalene-esque victim and pull a christian defense.

    if you live in los angeles, you are forced to interact with very diverse people, some of which you might dislike because of their culture, there is nothing wrong with either them or you, you learn to tolerate the stuff you don't like as i'm sure other people tolerate you, this might sound harsh, but it's really not if you look at it from the perspective that it's all in accepting other people the way they are; because we don't, we live in this permanent childhood when it comes to cultural acceptance. it's easier to make everything black or white than to try to understand.

    In the same way, one needs to be a in class of one's own when it comes to ignorance to be a student in a university and have that narrow view and not content with that, film it and upload it where everybody can admire such stupidity.

  16. "why do you go to such extent to defend her?"
    That's actually a really good question. And I mean that honestly. Why did I come to the aid of one condemned by the Internet? What did I have to gain? Frankly, I wrote this sleep deprived at 2am without much thought to my own motives. Now that I reflect on them, I think I was primarily driven by anger about injustice and compassion on the poor girl. I think I was angry at the hypocrisy I was watching on Facebook and YouTube, and then trying to think about what Alexandra must be going through. Why defend her? Because defending sinners against hypocrites is the right thing to do.

    "your post does not only condone this behavior, but supports it."

    Ah yes. Of course. I defended the witch, so I must be one myself. And what do we do with witches? Burn them!

    "don't use religion as an excuse to promote your own agenda"
    What exactly do you think my agenda is? Do you really think that if I defend a racist, I must be a white supremacist?

    Also, everyone must use their 'religion' to promote their own agenda. Every action every person takes is because of beliefs he has about right and wrong, good and evil, reward and punishment. In this sense, even Atheists have a 'religion,' often an acutely moral one (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens). To insist that someone defend a position but 'not use their religion' is to insist that a person stand but not use their legs.

    "we live in this permanent childhood when it comes to cultural acceptance"
    I think this is exactly how we, the human race, live. And that's why when we start rebuking people as if we were grown-ups, it's silly.

    "it's easier to make everything black or white than to try to understand."
    That's exactly my point. Instead of understanding her, it's easier to make things black and white; she's a racist, and we're not; she's a sinner, and we're not. I find it ironic that in your own criticism, you commit the very error you are attacking.

    "it's just as bad to generalize about Asians as racists."
    I think this may be at the heart of the hypocrisy that so enraged me to begin with. I didn't write about that sin, but now that you've described it, it seems obvious.

  17. "david, i don't think you can compare adultery to blatant racism...what she did was wrong, and that's that."

    And cheating on your spouse isn't?

  18. David,

    There are no justifications for Alexandra's moment of empty-headedness. We all hope that other people can learn from this blunder because her 2 minutes and 52 seconds of shame impacted her entire life.

    Children of this generation are oblivious to the dangers and ramifications of social media outlets. Sure it can be a method to express oneself. However, beware and be prepared if you are at the other end of the spectrum.

  19. The problem is that Alexandra Wallace is in violation of 102.08 of the Student of Conduct (based on this:

  20. So you'd be OK with her being treated like a human being if she wasn't in violation of the code of conduct? How very generous of you.

    "102.08: Conduct that Threatens Health or Safety."

    Do you honestly, deep down in your heart, think making fun of Asians in the library constitutes a threat that "cause a person reasonably to be in sustained fear for one’s own safety"? Or are you just looking for a legal facade for your hatred?

    Did you read either of the links you posted? The Daily Bruin link talks about how she has received death threats. Death threats! And you're concerned about *her* violations?!


    Dear Internet, this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

  21. I think Miss Wallace is inaccurate. Its the persians who are the worst offenders in the library. Everyone knows that.

  22. @ David,

    "I wanted to communicate, "Don't be a hypocrite." Do you understand the passage differently?

    Me: I agree with your stance on the passage, I don't agree with your application of how you apply the passage. If 'being a hypocrite' means you can't rebuke someone, then I don't agree that all of those that left comments on youtube were hypocrites.

    Yes, I agree with you on the point of 'don't be a hypocrite'. Jesus was about love and helped this woman get out of her rut. However, I'm still not sure I understand the point of this post. Yes, there are hypocrites, but what would your response be to a Christian person who rebuked Alexandra Wallace in a caring / loving way. (1st timothy 5:20, James 5:20, Luke 17:3-4 - there are countless others)

    If someone wrote the below on youtube, would they be a hypocrite?

    Hypothetical Response to her Video: As a sinner myself, Alexandra, your comments were not Christlike and did not represent what Jesus would do. Because of God's grace that hes poured over us, he allows us to be reconciled with Him through Jesus Christ's death on a cross. I would encourage you to think before you speak next time and not make deragatory comments that could hurt others.

  23. just like how alexandra generalized all asians as from being japan and speaking ching chong a long... i don't think she even understands that asians can be americans as well...
    you're assuming that everyone that said "nope, that's wrong" as having made death threats against her? are you kidding me? how much do you want to bet that in the scripture you presented, EVERYONE THOUGHT THAT WHAT SHE DID WAS WRONG AND CONDEMNED HER FOR IT, BUT WAS IT EVERYONE THAT THREW STONES AT HER? i don't think so. in fact, nobody on the internet who's crucified her probably has had any physical contact with her or ever will. you're not saving her from any type of stoning whatsoever. i didn't know that rebuking someone was considered stoning... oops?

    lastly, you're not defending alexandra wallace as the creation God meant her to be. you're defending her racism, and also your own.

    but really, i dare you to come up with a blog about how bad the entire world is for condemning the actions of the two rutgers' students that resulted in the suicide of another student.


  24. you're digging yourself a hole. you're just spinning in circles with incoherent defenses.

    "because defending sinners against hypocrites is the right thing to do"

    think about what you said very carefully. everyone is a sinner and everyone is a hypocrite. to hell with the concept of morality on earth. to hell with order and everything that makes a civilization civil.

    on your next post, i would like to see you defending hitler, and criticizing the history book for portraying him as evil without a hint of compassion.

    and also, tell me that i'm being a hypocrite for criticizing you.

  25. "If 'being a hypocrite' means you can't rebuke someone, then I don't agree"

    Where have I said that you can't rebuke someone? Jesus mildly rebuked the woman in John 8, "Sin no more." I criticized these critics, but don't leap from that to assume that I am rejecting all rebuke.

    "I'm still not sure I understand the point of this post."

    Actually, I think you've got it. I think we may be in agreement. The essence of your hypothetical response is right. It admits the sin of the responder and humbly and compassionately calls the sinner to repentance. I'd probably translate some of the religious language into college vernacular, but you've definitely got the core. If there was an eruption of YouTube comments like that one, I'd have nothing to write about (except maybe the overflowing compassion).

  26. and if you haven't actually watched the video, you probably should...

  27. "you're digging yourself a hole. you're just spinning in circles with incoherent defenses."

    Shucks! And here I thought I was going somewhere.

    "to hell with the concept of morality on earth."

    Actually I rather like the idea of morality on earth. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying we can't rebuke people. I'm saying that we ought to be a bit humbler when we do.

    "you're not saving her from any type of stoning whatsoever."
    Public shame is not a punishment? Knowing that literally thousands of people think you trash is nothing 'whatsoever'? I think we were all upset when we heard about the LGBT kids that committed suicide over cyber-bullying. I think that we may now consider Internet Shame a real thing with real tangible consequences.

    "you're assuming that everyone that said "nope, that's wrong" as having made death threats against her?"

    And now you're assuming that when I say that some people made death threats, that I meant all people made death threats.

    "and also, tell me that i'm being a hypocrite for criticizing you."
    I think you're wrong (as you think me), but I don't feel like you're being driven by hypocrisy here. I sense that you're really angry about my opinions. But you haven't accused me of any wrongs that I can clearly see you committing (except perhaps generalizing).

  28. i think you have a twisted logic. 2 rutgers students that committed the wrongdoing = alexandra wallace. suicidal student = the asians she was ranting about. i don't know how you're confusing who the victims are. who's humiliated? alexandra wallace or the asians she was demeaning?

    get a grip. quit trying to justify yourself. you're just as bad as alexandra.

    in fact, i don't even think that you think that what she did was wrong.

    if all you wanted to hear was, "oh david you're so humble and godly. thanks for keeping us in check, blah blah blah"... well there you have it. hope you're happy.

    sorry david, you're being a hypocrite for telling me that i'm committing any wrongdoings.


    do you support her too?

  30. and you know what? you messed up even from the beginning. you probably shouldn't have titled it, "A defense of Alexandra Wallace." If what you wanted was for people to be more civil in their ways of rebuking her, maybe you should have titled it to something more in line with the core of the message. but then again, what was the core of the convoluted message?

    i want to think that you're smarter individual than you portray yourself to be on this blog. your subtle choice of words to make up the title, along with using this pacific asian coalition or whatever it is to vaguely present the actual material might pass other people, but i'm not that stupid.

    like i said, don't use the blog as a blanket to cover up your own agenda. i can see you right through it.

  31. Alexandra Wallace has sinned. She has committed the unforgivable sin: racism, and she is presently being stoned to death by hypocrites. They are filled with self-righteous anger at this filthy sinner and, as if hoping to cleanse their own conscience, they fling stones. They can stone her to death with stones of shame and then go home self-righteously satisfied that they destroyed something evil. But they have only concealed the darkness which remains in their own hearts.

    nope. alexandra is being "stoned" now by people she was stoning first. in a "not-so-christian" world, that's just what happens when you do something stupid like that. if you feel bad for her, you should probably blame her parents for not doing their jobs right.

  32. "but then again, what was the core of the convoluted message?"

    Let me try again: Don't be a hypocrite.

    "i want to think that you're smarter individual than you portray yourself to be on this blog."

    Sorry to disappoint.

    "don't use the blog as a blanket to cover up your own agenda. i can see you right through it."

    Can you not comprehend any motive for me but closet racism? The only people who would ever defend accused witches must themselves be witches. I suppose that's how it goes.

    "alexandra is being "stoned" now by people she was stoning first."

    Why do y'all have to pick on her? Why is she hated and, say, Russell Peters loved? Tell me the difference between 1:33 of this video and Alexandra's rant: .

  33. ummm... did you just seriously compare russell peters to alexandra wallace?

    if you didn't notice, i'm picking on your logic more than anything else. i could care less about her. she's obviously just naive and uneducated. you on the other hand... why are you trying so hard to justify her actions?

    The only people who would ever defend accused witches must themselves be witches. I suppose that's how it goes. lol... is that in the bible or something? why don't you give me a more substantial reason than using a useless rhetoric to back yourself up?

    like i said before, you clearly have a twisted logic. what you need is not the bible. what you need is a lesson on common sense. i can't believe you just compared russell peters to alexandra wallace. you know, the world would be such a better place if there were more people like russell peters who's aware of racial issues and bring light onto them in a comical manner, where people can laugh but also subconsciously think about it.

    you are soooooooo far off from even the most basic human logic that i don't even know what to say anymore. i guess you should start feeling sorry for yourself that the white people enslaved all of the black people.

    just keep going down that road of labeling everyone else as hypocrites while you justify yourself for everything you do.

    really, may God shed a light on your senses.

  34. ya i said it. white people are murders. i mean who have the white people not killed and messed up? middle east? check. africa? check. central and south americas? check. jews? check. asians? check.

    hmmmm... and david, remember, you can't say anything to me because whatever thoughts you may have about me for saying that will make you a hypocrite.

    and you know what's even funnier? you claim to be defending a witch, while jesus defended a woman. oops?

  35. Most (not all) of the people reacting are not as arrogant as you assume. I think there is an stereotype even there you are applying to the "type" of person who attack her. (Your questions seem rhetorical and generalizing of the reader.)

    Personally I'm an attacker (not her personally but in general). I don't think any of those things that you mentioned (I'm actually quite cynical and argue with everyone). I don't think she should be expelled (it IS free-speech) and it doesn't matter anyway because she still will be culturally punished.

    I do, however, support the verbal attackers. Think of Wallace as a thug or a bully. She harmed someone (or a group of people) and the natural reaction is to be incredibly defensive. The way we defend is to attack back. Because we are so emotional, we attack with whatever hurtful words we know. (It is emotional because racism involves 1) labeling someone and making assumptions about people you haven't met and 2) usually they are insulting in some way--btw even the positive stereotypes are incredibly annoying but I won't go into that.) It doesn't necessarily mean we believe them, we choose them because they are the most hurtful towards the recipient.

    I know I'm not racist. I have angrily stood up for various races... for example, I just argued with a Chinese person who thought Japan "deserved" the tsunami (many Chinese have strong nationalistic standpoint and think Rape of Nanking is the worst battle/massacre/etc ever even though they have committed similar unrelated atrocities). I stood up for Japan. When my mom bashes China, I always stand up for that other country... BUT... when in moments of stress, for example driving at LAX... my top blows off. One time 3 successive cars cut me off at LAX and I was having a bad day. I let the entire airport have it. I was so enraged I screamed every single obscenity--quite literally--I could think of, even racist ones that didn't even apply to the person it was directed to.

    So, example, someone calls me fat. I am unable to brush it off (sorry I'm not Jesus or Buddha... I can only take so much) and I get angry so I give him a retort. Personally I am Agnostic and sometimes lean towards Atheist and I also believe that the justice system is broken. When someone wrongs someone else, a punishment must come of it, whoever it comes from. So I yell at them back. Similar to what is happening here. If someone inflicts unprompted pain onto you it is natural reaction to want to inflict it back.

    One might argue that "Asians" attacked her first by being disruptive in the library. I don't think that is applicable. It is well known that everyone, no matter their race, does the same thing. I've heard white girls do the same thing (btw I'm hapa). The fact that she also decided to pick up the fact that the talker was Asian and decided that being Asian correlated with bad behavior based on what sounds like one exaggerated incident, makes her racist. That suggests that she is so uncomfortable with Asians (besides her other comments) that she has to see the disturber as "Asian" rather than just a person. She could have ranted "I hate people who talk in the library."

    Sure, if she wants to be racist, fine... Asians know Asians moms are really racist... as are White people (Being hapa I have both racist Asian and White parents, lol... could be because they're both old.) but when you go out of your way to attack someone, that is crossing the line.

  36. "I let the entire airport have it."

    It's only natural.

    "If someone inflicts unprompted pain onto you it is natural reaction to want to inflict it back."

    Of course. I agree with you.

    "Think of Wallace as a thug or a bully."

    I do see your point. However, I'll admit I have a hard time thinking of her as a bully. Even on it's own merits, it's an uninspired and uninspiring rant; nobody's going to join the KKK after listening to her. The UCLA students I remember were smart, self-assured people; I can't think of anyone I knew there who, if she said this to their face, wouldn't just laugh at her. But your point is valid; she did make an attack.

    "I know I'm not racist."


    "I screamed every single obscenity--quite literally--I could think of, even racist ones"

    You sound like you're an unusually honorable person. Honestly, you've probably done more to fight racism in your life than I have. Yet you are not perfect. None of us are. And none of us, if pressed, ever claim to be. But all of us do want to draw a line in the sand. We want things black and white, and we want to be in the white. You said "I'm not a racist" even though you scream racial obscenities; the racist line is somewhere before YouTube posting and somewhere after ocassional obscenities.

    You sound like a person of decency. But I am suggesting that we go beyond decency into agape; to go from natural to supernatural; from the kingdom of earth to the Kingdom of Heaven. Sure it's natural to return hatred for hatred, insult for insult. Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Consider the incredible power of obeying that literally: Ghandi freed India and Martin Luther King confronted really violent racism. I say we follow their example.

    You said you're not Jesus or Buddha. Are you satisfied with that? Both of them claim you can follow them into the Kingdom of Heaven or into Enlightenment. Why don't you? You seem to respect them as teachers; why don't you believe their teachings?

    In my opinion, it's not the moral position that matters ("racist"/"not racist"). It's the moral derivative, or moral acceleration. Is a person progressing, and at what rate? That's where things get really interesting. We need to go beyond our simple linear assumptions about justice and begin to consider the higher order terms proposed by teachers like Jesus and Buddha. That's when people start to live like MLK and Ghandi: when men stop being simply men.


    i guess i really can see through people. didn't i tell you that it's partly her parents' fault?


    can you make a post defending her parents next please?

  38. @anonymous - "it's probably the parents fault" obviously you have no children. If you consider a college student an adult, you cannot blame their parents for anything they do. They make their own decisions. I read the article you posted. It only quoted the father's facebook post which was saying what his daughter wanted to call her blog. Does that make him responsible? The girl made a poor choice; nobody's fault but her own. She should be corrected/educated as to what her mistake was, but should she be chastised by 1,000's of people? Isn't that a bit extreme? When was the last time you said something stupid? Would you want 1,000's of people to chastise you? I think David is saying that we ALL have the potential to say or do something that is offensive to others. I'm not going to stone someone for their mistake. Maybe, just maybe, that person could be educated on their error rather than being threatened by death.


    legally speaking you can't blame the kids' parents after they turn 18 but comon now... assuming you had parents growing up... it's all about how they raise you and the values they instill in you. your parents will always have an influence on your life even after they die. i'm not saying that every single thing that someone's child(all of us) does wrong should point the blame towards the parent, but in this particular instance, both are to blame.

    should she be chastised by 1000s of people? what kind of question is that? hello, this is the internet, think twice about it... there, are, no, rules... also, i'm surprised only thousands are chastising her. i mean, what she did was equivalent to publishing her rant all over the world on every single newspaper agency, broadcasting it on every single radio channel and tv network... and even so, all of those means of communication combined is probably less efficient than the internet alone. at least in this particular case... so i think she's lucky that the whole asian race from all over the world is not threatening her. only in the thousands... she's definitely lucky.

    you know, i hate the word, "potential". life is not about potential, learn that now. everyone has the potential to do everything and anything. everyone also has the potential to do right and wrong. an act is an act. once you've committed it, that's it. i'm sure even hitler had the potential do become totally someone else. he didn't.

    and umm... that's unfortunate that you think that people are stoning her. it's too bad that she's being stoned? at least it's only thousands out of the millions she's offended...? isn't that a pretty realistic turn out?

  40. also when you use the word potential, it sounds like you assume that there is an end product of a person at a certain point. don't be so naive. life is a journey(i know, how cliche, right?)... but it really is. at every step along the way, you are someone, making a conscious decision. it is useless to argue over the "potential" of someone. it denies ownership/responsibility of one's actions until the person reaches his end product(which doesn't exist). this would not be a human world...

    racism? unforgivable sin? let me be the first person and certainly not the last person to tell you that it doesn't get any closer than that. i guess i can't blame you for not understanding the sensitivity of this subject for minorities, but at the same time, you can't blame me for not fully understanding what it must feel like for you to be living in an atheist world(maybe you have no idea what i'm talking about). lucky for you though, you live in one of the more if not the most christian nations in the world.


  41. "what she did was equivalent to publishing her rant all over the world"

    Actually you did that. As the owner of a low-trafficked blog, let me tell you that the Internet is fickle and rarely cares about what you have to say. It was the offended people who reposted it which made her small sin into a great one. Maybe 50 of her racist friends would have ever seen the video. But, with your help (and the rest of the offended Internet), she reached at least a thousand times, maybe even a million times, that number.

    "it is useless to argue over the "potential" of someone. it denies ownership/responsibility of one's actions"

    I agree with you, though I don't think this is quite what the other Anonymous (or I) was saying. You are absolutely right: it's not about potential, it's about action and intent.

    "racism? unforgivable sin? doesn't get any closer than that."


    "i guess i can't blame you for not understanding the sensitivity of this subject for minorities"

    You are right in guessing my inability to empathize about these things. I don't seem to have the ability to be offended for a demographic I'm a part of. Clearly my race is rarely attacked in the US of A. But I have been many places where being white was rare. When I was in Turkey, we went to the market and were talking to the butcher to buy meat. A Turkish guy walked in behind us, and the clerk asked him to come to the front of the line in front of us (we were foreigners, after all). At this clear violation of standards of fairness and decency, I felt nothing (my American companions were furious). I just thought, "This is how they do things here." It cost me 5 minutes of my life, no biggie. I lived in Kenya for a year, and had children daily hiss at me to get my attention and then shout "Muzugu! [White man] How are you?! Give me money!" Because, in their minds, white men carry unlimited amounts of money on them at all times, and don't give it to needy children on the street purely from selfish greed. I would just shrug and I thought, "This is how they do things here."

    I do indeed live in a Christian nation, but let me tell you what: graduate school at a top university ain't no Christian nation. :) I have indeed felt the isolation and even mild persecution of being part of a tiny and hated minority at school. But even here, I don't care about 'being Christian' so much as their insulting Christ. I don't care if they mock my church or my demographic category ("Evangelical"). What really riles me up is when they unfairly slander or mock Jesus or His teachings (either primarily or secondarily).

    So it seems to me that sensitivity to discrimination is something that is variable. Very little of my confidence comes from what strangers think about my demographics. But clearly I am an exception. Unless this is an actual genetic deficit in me, it was likely the result of a cognitive behavior. I wonder if this level of sensitivity can be changed voluntarily (probably through cognitive exercise, CTB, etc). I'm curious: would you want to be less sensitive if you could? Would you want to rob the racists of their power to hurt you?

  42. I really think this blog is hypocritical itself. Your logic is accusing people of being hypocrites but you apply that to everyone including yourself. It makes no sense.
    Its amazing how much energy you place into defending someone that had no positive intention with their actions whatsoever. I know you feel as if you are "defending" the persecuted, but there are much better issues that need "defending" that are not brought about by their own actions. You reap what you sow. If I were to upload a rant about a certain race, I would not be surprised to get a backlash, and I think deservedly so....

  43. I like how you pat yourself on your back about how you are not sensitive to discrimination, and go on to give examples to support your statement. Do you really believe that having someone cut in line while you are on vacation or some children calling you by a name to ask for money is that offensive?
    Try living that life every day of your life in a country where you are the minority and lets see how "sensitive" you would be then. I wonder if you would be a tad more sensitive rather than having getting pushed to the back of the line in Turkey, if you were placed in an internment camp during the war like the Japanese Americans, or placed on a reservation and stripped of your land like the native americans, or sold as slaves and segregated like the african americans? Maybe, just maybe you are the "exception" because your experiences have never really been at the level that others have. MAYBE, you do not understand the level of uproar that others have because you have never been in their shoes and experiences what they have. Maybe you should get off your high horse and realize that maybe you are NOT so exceptional but that MAYBE your life has been alot easier and cushier than others. You talk about how all these hypocrites think they are better than others in one way or another and here you do the same thing in your own blog. You try to stay on a high horse and pretend that you are the better person by defending someone who cant defend themselves and look who and what you are defending, and think who and what you are indulting. MAYBE it is not that you are less sensitive and exceptional but instead that you are more callous and unaware. I'm sure you wont agree with me though - self exploration is always the hardest thing. So think what you like... it's your little bubble blog anyway....

  44. "Its amazing how much energy you place into defending someone that had no positive intention with their actions whatsoever."

    It amazes me that someone who thinks me an insane racist would subscribe to blog and leave none of my comments unanswered.

    "sold as slaves and segregated like the african americans"

    If Fredrick Douglas made these claims, then I'd take him seriously. Most people who complain of racism have never actually been slaves.

    "it is not that you are less sensitive and exceptional but instead that you are more callous and unaware."

    It is an undeniable possibility. I was trying my best to show empathy, to understand from my own experience how other people feel. But, if you're right, I am a member of the Master Race and I could never understand minorities or their pain. If you're right, I shouldn't even bother with empathy.

    "So think what you like"

    Thank you. I will.

  45. Thank you. I'm really glad to know I'm not alone in thinking the general reaction to Alexandra Wallace is extremely far out of proportion to what she did. Her rant was ignorant and insensitive, but the reactions she got are downright scary.

    I agree that a lot of people who are harassing her are self-righteous hypocrites. I suspect many of them are not even the Asian Americans who were offended. People have a tendency to look for any reason they can to justify aggression towards another. There is a lot of rudeness and callousness towards other races, but it's sad that so many people chose to go after an easy target.