this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
1551 points (99.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
11543 readers
1917 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
...unless there's a profit to be made. Hype rice into the next superfood and watch people grow it in the desert.
ricemaxxing
5/7
People (by which I mean extremely large agro-businesses) are growing soybeans and corn in the desert because it's the highest economic yield per acre grown. Almost nothing competes with it. So it's not just that a profit has to be made, but also that a larger profit than corn or soybeans has to be made. Which is unlikely, given how much bio-engineering and infrastructure capital has gone into both of those crops.
If Americans ever embrace rice I'll eat 4 pairs of vintage high top Doc Martens
Murican's eat a lot of rice, and beans, at least in the southwest
Maybe it's a regional thing.. in my area the supermarkets put rice in the "ethnic" aisle 🤦
What until you hear what they used slaves to vote in South Carolina.
US produces something like 7 million tonnes of rice every year, mostly for internal consumption. It's not anywhere near China or India, but the US does already eat a shitload of rice.
But for people of Asian heritage. It's not like European americans eat considerable amounts of rice.
I already said it earlier, but Rice was a major crop in the pre civil war south. There is even a varietal names after the Carolinas. Assuming only Asians eat rice is kinda racist.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're racist, but the assumption is. I don't know you, and you're probably a decent person.
Also, Native Americans have been harvesting wild rice here for a long time.
I share because rice is a pretty neat crop that has spanned multiple cultures!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rice-consumption-by-country
The first western country in this list are the USA (placed 20th by total consumption), while also being the western country with the biggest population of people coming from countries ranked higher (mostly asian, and some south american).
So no, saying that asian and south american food culture includes more rice is not racist, it's a proven fact. Also native americans do only represent around 1.3% of the total population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States), while indian americans make up around 1.6% of the population, and asians in general around 7.24% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans).
NGL, that's... pretty racist?
Food trends in the US are almost entirely regional, not racial, and even if what you're asserting is true... 45% of the population of my state are from cultures whose cuisine involves large amounts of rice (hispanic and asian). The US as a whole eats a fair amount of rice. It's not every dish nor nearly as much as in several other countries, but it's not even a little bit uncommon.
You're saying that what I say is racist, and proceed to tell me that rice consumption is regionally high in the US, for example in your area where you have 45% latino and asian population.
I mean ok. Could it be that I am going to Walmart, Kroeger, Target and other supermarkets, and the only ones selling rice in conveniently sized containers are asian supermarkets like the local indian store or the H-Mart? No. Must be racist.
I said that the presumption that the amount of rice being consumed in the US is dependent on someone's racial or ethnic subgroup and therefore excludes "European Americans" (which isnt a thing, really) is kinda racist - because it is. The idea that european-descended people don't eat rice I mean... what on earth.
Anyways I think you misunderstood: My point with the ethnic makeup of my state, which is not markedly abnormal tho we do trend more brown than some, is to point out that even in the case that you were right (which to be clear you are not) that would still mean an absolutely staggering portion of the US population consumes rice.
Wait, your point is that it's racist to say that americans of european descent eat less rice? Brother you need to touch grass asap.
Racism is systemic by nature, you can't be racist towards white people in a majority white country. Also it's really unclear to me how you can assume that eating less rice is supposedly something bad?
a bit of nuisance: you can't be racist against whites in a white supremacist society.
Okay so that's not what I said at all, but ignore that because:
There is just no point in continuing this discussion if you seriously think this, yikes.
Just so we're clear, what does racism mean to you? What are the consequences of racism against you, a white person, and what are the consequences of racism against, let's say a black person, in the USA?
Nah man, I was serious, I'm not doing this with you. Your argument is flawed to where it could be easily used to justify Apartheid and I'm just. I don't have the patience to deal with educating someone that doesn't understand that "saying everyone of a certain descent behaves some way" is inherently racist. Sorry, but no.
Ok my guy, you really need to go out some more. And maybe read. Because it's a fact that asian countries lead the world rice consumption, followed by mostly south american and african countries. Just look up rice consumption by country, or if you prefer look it up per capita. (https://worldostats.com/country-stats/rice-consumption-per-capita-by-country-2025-rankings/)
Now having established this fact (not a feeling, not racism, just a fact about rice consumption), and then considering that the USA has a considerable population of people originating from those countries, the conclusion that the majority of rice domestically consumed in the US is being consumed mostly by people of asian (and maybe south american) descent is not raciat, but simply supported by facts.
But reading what you write I assume that you are a white american of european descent, that does just like to feel offended.
Oh hey, trying to bait someone into engaging with your bonkers arguments by repeatedly insulting them, that's a great look.
Brother you're engaging for over an hour already, you're just ignoring the argument and building straw men instead of admitting that you were clueless (or provide any factual evidence)
Perhaps you could take this as an opportunity to reflect on your earlier statement and try to understand why people might view it as problematic, instead of lashing out and insisting you did nothing wrong?
If you're the one seeing racism in any statement, you might want to reflect yourself. Yes, my initial statement wasn't elaborated in the way it should have, and maybe I didn't expect the level of american centric education I've found here, because as somebody that's been around in this world it is just blatantly obvious to me that different regions have different food preferences, and that this is not related to race, but culture.
Also, if you can spare that little time, I am really, honestly, interested in how you think that not believing in racism against white people does let me justify apartheid. Because Apartheid is usually a construct white people use to separate themselves from other "races", as seen in the US, South Africa and Palestine.
I'd also like to add that my replies contained no insults (feel free to point them out to me), so if you felt insulted it's most likely because you feel exposed.
"Well my insults must have been accurate so they don't count" what a fascinating way to absolve yourself from responsibility for your actions. Not right, nor novel, but I very rarely see that reasoning coming from a non-conservative-maga-esque source. Which is of course just observation exposing you, not an insult. Really if you're insulted thats just because of how accurate my statements pointing out you sound like MAGA really were. Mom you don't understand, I'm not touching him, therefore I am innocent and he's just a whiner.
Admittedly that wasn't my most mature explanation, but I do think it gets the point across rather clearly. Anyways, I'll happily throw you a bone of a real explanation: Not being able to be racist against white people because they are the majority is the issue there. Apartheid, which was oppression of the majority by the minority, was undeniably racist - but by your reasoning would have been impossible to be considered thus.
You, again, put words in my mouth I never said, which is a straw man. I said that I did write a single insult and invited you to point out a single one, which you didn't. You feeling offended, embarassed or even insulted does not mean that I did insult you by default. Not saying that your feelings don't matter, but if they are opposed to the facts they are just that: irrational feelings.
Apartheid is by no means limited to a minority oppressing a majority, if you take a look at apartheid in the USA and even Palestine, you'll notice that a majority of white people was/is oppressing and segregating a minority. It's really just about segregation and applying different laws to people depending on the group they are part of.
Looking at Europe, you can even find what I'd call Apartheid in Ireland, where the Irish people have been segregated and oppressed by the British for hundreds of years, before Ireland gained partial independence.
Now, me saying something like "raciam against white people doesn't exist" is just a fact. But again, I am happy to agree with you that I was wrong if you bring up one single example of systemic racism against white people, really anywhere in the world. I am not aware of any place where white people would have a harder time just because they are white (which is what happens to people of color all around the world by the way)
I am going to choose ireland as my example.
And that's a really bad example, because the British did not oppress the Irish people because of their "race", skin color or other visual differences, by a matter of fact they both are of similar heritage. As far as I am aware the main reason was their religion, as the Irish were Catholics or believed in Celtic gods, while the British were protestants. We could call it Christian on Christian violence, that was all around Europe after Christianity took over.
The anti-irish sentiment, that did spread around the world was merely based on Nationalism, as well as the British having been the major colonizer around the world, spreading their dislike for Irish people.
Or am I missing your point? It would certainly be easier to argue with you if you didn't just always reply with one liners, omitting all relevant context and information that led to your conclusion, just like I did in my initial reply.
Also, as a side note, you again only picked one point, I am still happily waiting for you to cite an insult I supposedly threw at you.
So this is you:
And this is the definition of apartheid:
And this is you, now:
Hmm.
Yes, you're right, I called it Apartheid/segregation, and it really just was segregation, not based on race, which makes it no Apartheid. A critical thinker like you most likely knew in advance that an irish person could pass as a british at any time if they wanted, when you listed Ireland as an example. You really got a big gotcha here, but I am still waiting for you to make any meaningful point. It's not hard to make no mistakes when writing if you only write one liners.
So again,are you interested in having an honest discussion, or are you just here to troll?
And here we have you again:
But if we look into it, we find:
Wait, so that means... this wasn't a gotcha at all? It really was Apartheid?
Drat that wascally warl0k3...
I want to drop the facade for a moment here and clarify something important: I'm not doing this to troll you, I'm doing this to point out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. You just don't. You're arguing from your heart, and I'm sure you're a decent person despite this, but what you are spouting is utter bollocks.
When I said, wayyyy back when, that I didn't have the patience to educate you? This is what I meant. You're either ignorant of or forgetting about basic concepts, like how race is a purely social construct that has changed wildly (even in the past few years). You're trying to argue too many things, and you don't have a coherent point or a firm basis on which to base your supercilious exhortations on the nature of racism. An example would be the idea that the irish could pass as british: well yes/no, the black irish faired much better than than redheads for this exact reason, but redheadedness being the defining trait of the irish race is a stigma that survives to this day (yes, the term is not an irish term - but I don't know of another one to describe that segment of the population). And fair play to you for getting it wrong, it's a complex topic and ignorance isn't shameful (just the denial of ignorance) and all that. But still.
The reason I keep picking at just one issue (Apartheid, in this case)? I told you I was only throwing you a bone on a single issue. There's just too much wrong in what you're saying, and I just don't want to deal with all of it. Please understand that I'm not trying to be mean, I just sincerely do not have any interest in trying to teach you when you're so damn hostile. It's just no fun for me.
It's really funny how you claim you have no patience educating me, yet are on a reply spree to pick out singular points, without making any of your own.
i am still waiting for you to tell me how saying that americans of asian descent eat more rice than americans of european descent, which was how all of this started.
Now I am sure that you just enjoy this back and forth as much as I do, but I have to tell you that you've just a bad faith actor, which makes you no more than a troll.
And while I appreciate the elaboration of yours, which I agree, I did not study the Irish oppression more than a few hours in school, but it does again show that you're really just in for a quick gotcha, not at all for the sake of the argument. And again, I have a good time chatting with trolls, so don't feel bad for me, I am having a blast.
No, I'm still not interested in educating you beyond that one single topic (and some meta-commentary). If you cant understand how ascribing behavior based solely on racial groups is racist, there's no hope for you. If you want to discuss the one topic that I've already clarified I'm game to discuss feel free, but otherwise you can just keep wearing the mask of performative disinterest and repeating your affirmations in the bathroom mirror of internet commentary for as long as you like. I really really am not doing this.
"Millions of lifelong rice-eaters suffer from starvation as rice prices skyrocket to unbelieveable historic highs as the US decides on its new micro-hyper-trend."