I thought you were going to point out distinct etymology, but these terms do seem linked, no? Not surprising that the shared lineage confers shared problems.

▲

navane 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I had to Google it, but apparently it comes from cars, where a riced car has stripes and spoilers and such to make it look like a race car.

One source claimed rice was race inspired custum e-forgot, the other did claim a link with asian street racing.

	▲	brnaftr361 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I expect that r.i.c.e. was overfit. Asian imports are called riceburners, ostensibly because asian cultures consume a lot of rice. I guess it could be contrived as racist, but it's relatively harmless in the scope of things... I'm speculating further: but the imports were cheap and had a thriving aftermarket of bolt-on parts e.g. body and turbo kits. The low barrier of entry afforded opportunities for anybody to play. Ricing was probably a perjorative issued by domestic enthusiasts that was adopted ironically by Asian import enthusiasts. If you can imagine there was a lot of diversity, people who would bolt up body kits to clapped out Civics to people that would push 700hp with extensively tuned cars with no adornments. I think in particular ricing was the more aesthetically motivated of the crowd. This was later adopted by computer enthusiasts that like to add embelishments to their desktops, things like rainmeter/rocketdock and Windows/Linux skins and etc...

▲

trod1234 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The two are unconnected, one is used as a pejorative which is racist, the other isn't. This is not a hard distinction to make if you aren't a bot.

<Victim> "I'm ricing my Linux Shell, check it out." <Bot> That's Racist!

<Bot Brigade> Moderator this person is violating your rules and being racist!

<Moderator> I'm just using AI to determine this. <Bot Brigade> Great! Now they can't contribute. Lets find another.

TL;DR Words have specific meanings, and a growing number of words have been corrupted purposefully to prevent communication, and by extension limit communication to the detriment of all. You get the same ultimate outcomes when people do this as any other false claim. Abuses pile up until eventually in the absence of functioning non-violent conflict resolution; violence forces the system to reform.

Have you noticed that your implication is circular based on the indefinite assumption (foregone conclusion) that the two are linked (tightly coupled)?

You use a lot of ambiguous manipulative language and structure. Doing that makes any reasonable person think you are either a bot, or a malicious actor.