|
semper wifi posted:"Racism" has been a worthless term at least on the internet ever since someone decided that everything could be racist if you simply applied the correct mental gymnastics to it and this thread is a perfect example of that. Nope, it's just the same old people complaining that racist stuff isn't racist, which has been happening forever. Doesn't make the term worthless, just makes racist fuckheads worthless. Now we're attempting to do the same to CA because heaven forbid a white person might ever have done something racist and have it actually be called that.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's been a poo poo load of evidence that the word is useless presented, you're the one who decided to randomly demand other people prove racism isn't uselessly vague. I suspect you know this is a bullshit assertion so instead of actually supporting it you're trying to goad other people into attacking it so you can do you're normal pedantic goalpost shifting bullshit. No, there's been a lot of concern troll whining about whether listening k-pop or eating Pei Wei is appropriation, in an attempt to water the discussion down so that white folks can feel good about themselves, but the complexity of the subject(my goodness, a discussion of racism that doesn't deal with simple hate speech and lynchings!) doesn't make the term useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Depends on the context I'm using it in. See, one cool thing is I'm not actually limited in the number of words that I can use, and the general understanding of racism--that people are put at a disadvantage by being treated differently by perceived differences in 'race', which is an artificial social construct that purports to be based on biological differences--is a pretty good starting point. Using that common knowledge as the springboard, if I'm talking about it I can use other words to clarify my meaning--like has been done with cultural appropriation in this thread, by me and various others. It's nifty! That is the academic definition and it is a useful concept, but I doubt it is the 'general understanding of racism.' Many, if not most people will tell you that racism is something like the average dictionary definition quote:a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race That racism is understood as referring to a thing, and the cause of the thing, and the consequence of the thing, makes it a problematic word in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:08
|
|
Miltank posted:That is the academic definition and it is a useful concept, but I doubt it is the 'general understanding of racism.' Many, if not most people will tell you that racism is something like the average dictionary definition Well, I guess language is generally problematic.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Miltank posted:That is the academic definition and it is a useful concept, but I doubt it is the 'general understanding of racism.' Many, if not most people will tell you that racism is something like the average dictionary definition How is that problematic? The people pointing at the specific wording of the dictionary definition are almost always trying to split hairs about how they're not racist(after being called out for being racist). Nobody is really confused by what someone means when they're accused of racism, but it's such a vilified thing to be a racist that people will try and do all sorts of gymnastics to explain how they're not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Miltank posted:That is the academic definition and it is a useful concept, but I doubt it is the 'general understanding of racism.' Many, if not most people will tell you that racism is something like the average dictionary definition I think it is foolish for people to want the word to be so precise when it came to a system that was and is horribly imprecise. But like all things complex, we can explain it and what racism means in different contexts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think it is foolish for people to want the word to be so precise when it came to a system that was and is horribly imprecise. But like all things complex, we can explain it and what racism means in different contexts. People either want a definition so precise that they can technicality themselves out of it, or they will complain it's too vague and applies to nothing. The important part is racism will continue to be a problem that everyone agrees exists without ever finding any examples or people doing it that is less blatant than a Klan lynching.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They were implying what they said: Racism and cultural approrpation are comorbid. This means they occur at the same time a lot, and implies they're related, which they are. It doesn't imply they're the same. I'm somewhat amused by the fact immediately after you attempted to piss on me and call it rain Zeitgeist himself made three more posts in short succession calling it racism Zeitgueist posted:No, there's been a lot of concern troll whining about whether listening k-pop or eating Pei Wei is appropriation, in an attempt to water the discussion down so that white folks can feel good about themselves, but the complexity of the subject(my goodness, a discussion of racism that doesn't deal with simple hate speech and lynchings!) doesn't make the term useless. The OP was about white girls wearing sari's, this focus on bullshit wasn't because of concern trolls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The OP was about white girls wearing sari's, this focus on bullshit wasn't because of concern trolls. The OP was a concern troll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The OP was a concern troll. Fair enough
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No, there's been a lot of concern troll whining about whether listening k-pop or eating Pei Wei is appropriation, in an attempt to water the discussion down so that white folks can feel good about themselves, but the complexity of the subject(my goodness, a discussion of racism that doesn't deal with simple hate speech and lynchings!) doesn't make the term useless. No, the examples used have been shifting to meet your rhetorical purposes. When challenged, the issue becomes about the Redskins and stealing black music, something everyone agrees is racist, but not exactly why. When circle jerking among those you agree with the issue morphs into white girls wearing saris. No amount of saying 'LOL, white people  ' is going to hide the shifting definitions in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Hey Zeitgueist you big idiot, here's a hint: when I post about white guys owning taco trucks, I'm not "concern trolling", I'm actually trolling, because it makes people like you flip the gently caress out and it's funny. Your complete lack of any sense of humor or perspective is why people like making you mad, because it makes you post more crazy things for people to laugh at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:46
|
|
-Troika- posted:Hey Zeitgueist you big idiot, here's a hint: when I post about white guys owning taco trucks, I'm not "concern trolling", I'm actually trolling, because it makes people like you flip the gently caress out and it's funny. Well, hopefully under President Chelsea we can take your guns away and FEMA will inject you with AIDS.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Let us English posted:No, the examples used have been shifting to meet your rhetorical purposes. When challenged, the issue becomes about the Redskins and stealing black music, something everyone agrees is racist, but not exactly why. When circle jerking among those you agree with the issue morphs into white girls wearing saris. No amount of saying 'LOL, white people People have posted definitions every 3rd page and I'm sure the endless stream of "but what is it really" is a totally the problem of the people repeating themselves. -Troika- posted:Hey Zeitgueist you big idiot, here's a hint: when I post about white guys owning taco trucks, I'm not "concern trolling", I'm actually trolling, because it makes people like you flip the gently caress out and it's funny. You mean, the people posting stupid poo poo in this thread....weren't serious?  I need...I need to go sit down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think it is foolish for people to want the word to be so precise when it came to a system that was and is horribly imprecise. But like all things complex, we can explain it and what racism means in different contexts. I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Let us English posted:No, the examples used have been shifting to meet your rhetorical purposes. When challenged, the issue becomes about the Redskins and stealing black music, something everyone agrees is racist, but not exactly why. When circle jerking among those you agree with the issue morphs into white girls wearing saris. No amount of saying 'LOL, white people Shifting definitions? Stuff means different things to different people. If the author of that article is offended, then the author is offended. She even states that it was a personal peeve of hers in the article. It seems like people are just trying to pick one aspect of CA and trying to use it to tear down the concept as a whole when it is a complex system of interactions and transgressions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Shifting definitions? Stuff means different things to different people. If the author of that article is offended, then the author is offended. She even states that it was a personal peeve of hers in the article. It seems like people are just trying to pick one aspect of CA and trying to use it to tear down the concept as a whole when it is a complex system of interactions and transgressions. People have every right to feel one way or another about any issue, but not all claims of racism can be accepted as equally valid or worthy of concern/being addressed. This video is not as much of a parody as it might seem, and points out that sometimes claims of racism are made in good faith but still not valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdSTY6Y-rs
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No, there's been a lot of concern troll whining about whether listening k-pop or eating Pei Wei is appropriation, in an attempt to water the discussion down so that white folks can feel good about themselves, but the complexity of the subject(my goodness, a discussion of racism that doesn't deal with simple hate speech and lynchings!) doesn't make the term useless. I'm happy to repost the question you ignored earlier in the thread. Popular Thug Drink posted:Haha people get thier panties so twisted about SJWs they start questioning the tenets of democracy, nice Cultures don't have elected leaders, or leaders at all. Take this for example. http://www.wildhorsepassresort.com/culture posted:The Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa is devoted to Cultural Sustainability. The property is owned by the Pima and Maricopa Tribes that comprise the Gila River Indian Community and their culture and heritage is woven into every aspect of the resort, offering an authentic and tangible cultural experience for guests and visitors. The Pima and Maricopa tribes opened a luxury hotel in south Phoenix, commodifying their own culture to sell to non-native tourists. Does it matter that a majority (or at least a majority of the powerful) in the tribe did this voluntarily? If a minority in the tribe considered this appropriation that was destroying their culture, would their opinion make it so?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:24
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm happy to repost the question you ignored earlier in the thread. That's not appropriation because you can't appropriate your own culture. So it's irrelevant, sorry.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not appropriation because you can't appropriate your own culture. So it's irrelevant, sorry. It's non-natives who are funding the commoditization through consumer activity in his example, so it is quite relevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:33
|
|
Let us English posted:It's non-natives who are funding the commoditization through consumer activity in his example, so it is quite relevant. Hold on, I'm appropriating money from myself at the moment.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
It's the commodification of culture that makes it wrong right? This is why I'm not sure that cultural appropriation is a useful concept. It just isn't relevant outside of some sort of economic exploitation, so why not just go straight to talking about that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Let us English posted:People have every right to feel one way or another about any issue, but not all claims of racism can be accepted as equally valid or worthy of concern/being addressed. This video is not as much of a parody as it might seem, and points out that sometimes claims of racism are made in good faith but still not valid. Who defines validity? Things are constantly shifting all the time. Let's not forget that the definition of "whiteness" changes over time. And sure, you can just ignore people's claims of racism, but that pretty much is the status quo as it is today. We are talking about a country that ignored claims of inequality and racism because people didn't understand that separate is inherently unequal. That video really doesn't point out anything other than a guy got a tattoo without really knowing what the hell it meant. Miltank posted:It's the commodification of culture that makes it wrong right? This is why I'm not sure that cultural appropriation is a useful concept. It just isn't relevant outside of some sort of economic exploitation, so why not just go straight to talking about that? No. There is also the Iggy Azalea example posted early in the thread where she shits on the culture that she is attempting to emulate. Not to mention all of the recognition that CA fucks people over on even when it is non-economic. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It's the commodification of culture that makes it wrong right? This is why I'm not sure that cultural appropriation is a useful concept. It just isn't relevant outside of some sort of economic exploitation, so why not just go straight to talking about that? Cultural appropriation is an example of exploitation by an oppressive dominant culture of a less powerful, marginalized, minority culture. You can't appropriate your own culture, any more than you can steal something you already own. If a culture wants to make money on itself, that is their business. Usually, but not always, minority groups are blocked from doing so by the dominant culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
So I can wear a Sari as long as I buy it from an Indian? My hanzi tat is totally legit if the artist is chinese?Zeitgueist posted:Cultural appropriation is an example of exploitation by an oppressive dominant culture of a less powerful, marginalized, minority culture. Yes but cultures are not monoliths. Some people in a culture might be willing to make money by commoditizing that culture, even while a majority of that culture believes their actions are, or lead to, appropriation. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I can wear a Sari as long as I buy it from an Indian? My hanzi tat is totally legit if the artist is chinese? You can wear a Sari anytime you want. No one is stopping you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:You can wear a Sari anytime you want. No one is stopping you. So I can wear a sari without offending some Indian people by appropriating their culture as long as I buy it from an Indian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I can wear a Sari as long as I buy it from an Indian? My hanzi tat is totally legit if the artist is chinese? You putting on a meaningless sari because you like the way it looks on you is probably not appropriation. Were you wearing a specific cultural garment, probably yes You getting a generally accepted word on your body from another alphabet because you enjoy the aesthetics is probably not appropriation. You getting a specific person's Maori tattoo that has meaning and belongs to a certain person(as many/most Maori tattoos do) probably IS appropriation. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:55
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I can wear a sari without offending some Indian people by appropriating their culture as long as I buy it from an Indian? Do you understand that treating "Natives building a hotel" as identical to "a white guy wearing a sari" is incredibly stupid to anyone without your weird grudge against liberalism.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes but cultures are not monoliths. Some people in a culture might be willing to make money by commoditizing that culture, even while a majority of that culture believes their actions are, or lead to, appropriation. Then that's up to them, the cultural appropriation folks in this thread are generally talking about is one of an oppressing group to an oppressed. Commoditizing a culture to dilute it's meaning, as you're implying, isn't a good thing, but it's also not necessarily cultural appropriation. Things can be bad without being the same thing as other bad things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you understand that treating "Natives building a hotel" as identical to "a white guy wearing a sari" is incredibly stupid to anyone without your weird grudge against liberalism. I don't have a grudge against liberalism. Maybe pull back on the shitposting for a hour or so and let yourself calm down? I'm not comparing natives building a hotel to a white guy wearing a sari, I'm comparing natives building a hotel to Indians selling saris, and implicitly non natives staying at the hotel to non Indians wearing saris. "You can't appropriate your own culture" seems like a very problematic statement that you cannot apply consistently. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I can wear a sari without offending some Indian people by appropriating their culture as long as I buy it from an Indian? You would have to ask an Indian person. Many would probably agree and many would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:09
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have a grudge against liberalism. Maybe pull back on the shitposting for a hour or so and let yourself calm down? Why? Can you steal money from yourself?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Then that's up to them, the cultural appropriation folks in this thread are generally talking about is one of an oppressing group to an oppressed. The commoditization we're talking about here is explicitly for the purpose of selling that culture to outsiders. If a non-native staying at a native-culture-themed hotel is appropriation, then the natives renting the rooms must be part of that appropriation. If non-Indians wearing saris is appropriation, the Indians selling them those saris must also be engaged in appropriation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why? Can you steal money from yourself? This is a terrible analogy because individual people don't own a culture. Is it possible for me to appropriate cultural elements that I share with many others for my personal gain at their expense? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:16
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The commoditization we're talking about here is explicitly for the purpose of selling that culture to outsiders. If a non-native staying at a native-culture-themed hotel is appropriation, then the natives renting the rooms must be part of that appropriation. If non-Indians wearing saris is appropriation, the Indians selling them those saris must also be engaged in appropriation. What if the appropriation was in wearing the sari, and specifically how you wore it, not buying it? Because that's what the thing in the OP is about, you know.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What if the appropriation was in wearing the sari, and specifically how you wore it, not buying it? Because that's what the thing in the OP is about, you know. It is really weird having a conversation with marxists and democratic socialists and having to convince them that the producers of commodities are responsible for the social consequences of that production.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
I actually found that this was a great article that has covered a lot of the ground that this thread has already covered. http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:25
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It is really weird having a conversation with marxists and democratic socialists and having to convince them that the producers of commodities are responsible for the social consequences of that production. Oh, okay, you're too dumb to communicate with. The blog in the OP is about the context of how the item is worn, which cannot be controlled by the person who sells it (who is in turn not necessarily the producer, either, you loving moron). Sorry. It's actually up to you to not be a cock, hard as it may be.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I can wear a sari without offending some Indian people by appropriating their culture as long as I buy it from an Indian? Would you like all Indians to write you a personal letter saying they promise not to be offended? As an Indian I probably would not have been offended beforehand but now I will be because you refuse to understand words or how to structure complete thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:31
|
|
