|
In any case why do people rail against "appropriation" and not against "bigoted mockery"?
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:In any case why do people rail against "appropriation" and not against "bigoted mockery"? They do rail against bigoted mockery. Why do variations of this question keep getting asked when the answer is obvious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They do rail against bigoted mockery. Probably because there seem to be some people who think that appropriation in and of itself is bad. It's not bad to steal art. My point is that "appropriation" is a concept that does not get at the harms perpetuated, at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They do rail against bigoted mockery. Because cultural appropriation still seems like a bizarre concept to get upset about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
The whole white gay men appropriating Black women is the wierded loving thing because it's kind of not true and then sometimes is completely totally true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:This is not a laughing matter. Eastern Europe is the place where the communist ideology has been first implemented, grew and (eventually) died. Now Western kids from stable liberal democracies, who never had problems with access to toilet paper, take chosen elements of communism and repurpose them to fit their needs. If this trend continues, everyone will think that this complicated and controversial ideology was about not wearing Japanese kimonos by Caucasians. I feel deeply offended by the people from the West trying to appropriate such an important element of Eastern European history. You laugh, but I knew a guy whose Ukrainian grandparents who had suffered horribly under Stalin got really upset when he wore a hammer and sickle shirt around during some high school communist phase. Not exactly the same thing, because communism isn't exactly a Ukrainian cultural thing, but there are definitely some parallels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
So ultimately does the spectre of cultural appropriation boil down to some people get upset at other people? Because there are people in america that are still upset at others smoking and I don't give a poo poo about them, so why should I give a poo poo about the Washington Redskins?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Raging against "cultural appropriation" is the politically correct way of wanting things "separate but equal." The world is coming full circle and we're gonna be back to strict forms of censorship in a few generations I bet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Because cultural appropriation still seems like a bizarre concept to get upset about. Not really. It's just another means of reacting against the alienating nature of modernity. Some people buy into, others don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:So ultimately does the spectre of cultural appropriation boil down to some people get upset at other people? Redskin is a legit slur, though, versus a white guy with dreadlocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Redskin is a legit slur, though, versus a white guy with dreadlocks. Slur or not, I'm still not going to be upset nor crusade to change it. I guess people just can't handle others freedom of speech. Anyway, next Halloween I'm going to dress up as Guan Yu (關帝), no yellow face though because if Jesus can be White, so can Emperor Guan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Slur or not, I'm still not going to be upset nor crusade to change it. I guess people just can't handle others freedom of speech. I think, if you're going to exercise your freedom of speech to name a team after a racial slur, it's entirely within the realm of reasonability for others to exercise their freedom of speech to criticize you for it. Also that sounds like a sick Halloween costume. Post pics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
I don't think freedom of speech makes you immune from criticism. Invoking it as a justification usually seems like a way of not actually participating in discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Because cultural appropriation still seems like a bizarre concept to get upset about. It's not the people who understand and accept cultural appropriation who are getting upset itt though  Why do people keep making this leap between "cultural appropriation is a thing that happens that is bad" and "i am agry about cultural appropriation happening" It's almost like some folks are extremely sensitive to any tangentially related social topic as an aspect of extreme social justice advocacy? weird
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Where does criticism becomes censorship? Since that is a fuzzy line, I like to ensure I'm as far away from censorship as possible. If that means people are offended, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Well if changing the name is done as a voluntary act in response to public outcry I would not call that censorship. I feel it's fairly bizarre to consider criticism and agitation from private citizens comparable to mandates from a central authority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Well if changing the name is done as a voluntary act in response to public outcry I would not call that censorship. I feel it's fairly bizarre to consider criticism and agitation from private citizens comparable to mandates from a central authority. Agreed. If the owner of the redskins changed that name I'm not going to cry censorship. But people earlier were implying that since the owner is obviously not going to change the name, maybe congress should step in, that seems pretty comparable to a mandate from a central authority to me. Same with the weaselly political methods of reclassifying speech you disagree with as "hate speech" and thus not subject to 1st amendment protections, or perhaps fining organization that espouse views you find distasteful?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:But people earlier were implying that since the owner is obviously not going to change the name, maybe congress should step in, that seems pretty comparable to a mandate from a central authority to me. 'redskins' is actually a slur though, which are and have been regulated are you one of those people who opposes everything the big bad government does on priniciple? you sound like one of those people e: also "heritage not hate" boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:'redskins' is actually a slur though, which are and have been regulated What "regulations" do you think apply to slurs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What "regulations" do you think apply to slurs? you can't trademark a slur. the redskins keep getting stung in court for having their trademarked name and logo be racial slurs, it's probably headed to the supreme court in the next couple years
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Well then nullify their dang trademark status and let the Great Bootlegging begin. Market-based solutions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Slur or not, I'm still not going to be upset nor crusade to change it. I guess people just can't handle others freedom of speech. "Some of the people on the correct side of the issue have views I do not endorse. That means I will throw away the entire issue, and in fact fully participate in actions I know to be wrong. What a thrill it is to be racist!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:'redskins' is actually a slur though, which are and have been regulated No? Why does my opposition to the government censoring bad words mean I am against the government doing anything? That's a bizarre leap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Some of the people on the correct side of the issue have views I do not endorse. That means I will throw away the entire issue, and in fact fully participate in actions I know to be wrong. What a thrill it is to be racist!" I assume you aren't familiar with Guan Yu? Because only people who aren't familiar with him would ascribe racism to dressing up like him, which was exactly the point I was making by specifically choosing him to dress up as, even going so far as to explicitly exclude "yellow-face" which would be racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:No? Why does my opposition to the government censoring bad words mean I am against the government doing anything? That's a bizarre leap. you're bizarrely leaping from disapproval directly to censorship and in my experience, people who are overly concerned with their bad conduct being censored are paranoid about government as an extension of society exposing them as the wretched hateful people they truly are i used to live with a guy who straight up hated black people though he wouldn't ever admit it and he spent most of his time blogging about first amendment issues, with a peculiar focus on the right to express himself without criticism! your whining about government comes across as a little tinfoilish in regards to the actual facts on the ground, which is that the government at worst would write a Stern Letter and refuse to enforce copyright on the redskins name and logo. it's practically a thought crime 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If anything American Indians should be proud that we honor their fierce proud braves with our badass helicopters. The name "Apache" lives on and inspires fear in bad guys. Some of them certainly don't seem to mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Hey PTD, I've come to Just Ask Some Questions about this very serious Slippery Slope Danger, please answer me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you can't trademark a slur. the redskins keep getting stung in court for having their trademarked name and logo be racial slurs, it's probably headed to the supreme court in the next couple years And that law is a complete unconstitutional mess: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/03/ProFootballvBlackhorseACLUAmicus.pdf e: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-music-slants-trademark-idUSKBN0KI1XP20150109
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you're bizarrely leaping from disapproval directly to censorship and in my experience, people who are overly concerned with their bad conduct being censored are paranoid about government as an extension of society exposing them as the wretched hateful people they truly are Where does the "without criticism" part come from? Has anyone ever said that they believe the first amendment protects them from criticism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And that law is a complete unconstitutional mess: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/03/ProFootballvBlackhorseACLUAmicus.pdf and? you asked what regulations applied, i told you, and it took you fifteen minutes to google up a proper goalpost moving response about how the government applies these regulations? Powercrazy posted:Where does the "without criticism" part come from? Has anyone ever said that they believe the first amendment protects them from criticism? i was relating an anecdote about another guy i know (note: not you, probably) who was very concerned with being able to express himself without criticism. i'll repeat that person was not you, Powercrazy, so you probably shouldn't be offended that this other person had this opinion. thank you for not censoring me
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Did that other guy, who was not me, ever say that the first amendment meant you couldn't call him a racist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
While I understand that there's a risk involved in letting speech be subject to standards of acceptability, I am at the same time unconvinced that its worth my time to stand with a bunch of rich men who don't want to change their team name to something other than the first nations equivalent of the Washington Kikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Did that other guy, who was not me, ever say that the first amendment meant you couldn't call him a racist? i dont remember. anyway, what do you think the government would do? ban the use of the word redskins? if so, isn't that a little extreme?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont remember. anyway, Oh. And here I thought that you were just misrepresenting his position, painting him as a racist caricature with inconsistent opinions and then applying those characteristics to me. Silly me, I guess I was just getting too hysterical. quote:what do you think the government would do? ban the use of the word redskins? if so, isn't that a little extreme? I absolutely think if the government banned the word "redskin" it would be just "a little" extreme. Do I think government policy would be shifted to specifically targeting that word? No. Like I said I don't really care about the Redskins (except when they play the Cowboys). What I do care about though is the potential chilling effect that a supreme court decision would have on the "acceptability" of language. While the trivial response is to dismiss it as just some rich white dudes getting criticized for being racist, I've never heard of the supreme court being that concerned with that topic before which implies that there is a significant effort behind it. So obviously it's not "just" some criticism and it's obvious that whoever is behind this case isn't satisfied with just criticism either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:While the trivial response is to dismiss it as just some rich white dudes getting criticized for being racist, I've never heard of the supreme court being that concerned with that topic before which implies that there is a significant effort behind it. So obviously it's not "just" some criticism and it's obvious that whoever is behind this case isn't satisfied with just criticism either. I don't think its necessary to start positing that there's a secretive cabal interested in instigating a chilling effect on speech when it's probably just Roberts thinking to himself that he could write a wikked sick opinion about corporate personhood using this case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:I don't think its necessary to start positing that there's a secretive cabal interested in instigating a chilling effect on speech when it's probably just Roberts thinking to himself that he could write a wikked sick opinion about corporate personhood using this case. when all you have is a fig leaf, everything looks like a chilling effect on free speech and/or overreaching censorship of private thought Powercrazy posted:Oh. And here I thought that you were just misrepresenting his position, painting him as a racist caricature with inconsistent opinions and then applying those characteristics to me. Silly me, I guess I was just getting too hysterical. you are getting kind of hysterical here about a theoretical thing that hasn't happened and probably won't happen. the right to use a racial slur for a football team name is a weird hill to die on bro
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:I don't think its necessary to start positing that there's a secretive cabal interested in instigating a chilling effect on speech when it's probably just Roberts thinking to himself that he could write a wikked sick opinion about corporate personhood using this case. Perhaps. But I'm not talking about a secret conspiracy or shadowy cabal or whatever. Since this is still the United States, and it's not a secret trial, the plaintiffs are identified. One of the plaintiffs is from the US Patent Office, specifically the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and since that board is made up of people, obviously a plurality of them decided to deny the trademark, even though it had been granted before much to their chagrin. That board with a few different people had even tried to cancel it before and failed. So it's clear they aren't just criticizing something they disagree with, they are actively attempting to coerce compliance using the legal system we have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Considering the Redskins were formed in the 30s, when you probably could have named a team the Boston Thieving Wops and people would only be offended about being compared to Italians, I don't think the trademark was granted to anybody's chagrin. And yes I suppose the team is being coerced - specifically into compliance with the law. Honestly I find the punk band case linked up thread more compelling. But thats just because I am an extremely biased person and am more sympathetic to a bunch of guys with guitars challenging the law to make a rhetorical point than I am to a corporation challenging the law to maintain their ~*brand identity*~
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
My disgust with current intellectual property law and disdain of corporate branding doesn't preclude me from calling out attempts at forcing a particular ~societal ideal~ using those systems. And please "compliance with the law"? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
 THE LAAAAAW Specifically the law barring trademarks that bring people into contempt or disrepute, or are disparaging. Which the patent office decided the Redskins name was in violation of after complaint from the Native American community.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:24
|
|