|
Thug Lessons posted:Actually re-reading this I can see how people would say it's similar to racism. There's no formal and complete definition of racism and people disagree about what's racist and what isn't, but that doesn't undermine the concept. The main difference I'd point to is that the starting point for how we evaluate racism are formally and openly racist societies, expressed through white supremacist states like the Jim Crow regime and ideological constructs like race science, Why is that the starting point? According to whom? quote:whereas the starting point for how cultural appropriation is understood are the grievances of very specific groups. In one case we're going "top-down" and looking at the legacy of colonial, imperial and class history and seeing the reflections in contemporary society, whereas in the other case we're going "bottom-up" by looking at specific cultural events and trying to find things that look similar and condemn them on the basis of that similarity. They're not the same method, and critically the way we understand racism is inherently rooted in a historical context while cultural appropriation isn't. Your method of looking at racism is not the only method. Why do you think it is? Why do you think that racism is inherently rooted in historical context while cultural approrpation isn't? I keep waiting for you to make an argument but you just assert repeatedly (when you're not saying that your experiences are defining, and anyone else saying they have different experiences is lying or naive).
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:48 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:Actually re-reading this I can see how people would say it's similar to racism. There's no formal and complete definition of racism and people disagree about what's racist and what isn't, but that doesn't undermine the concept. The main difference I'd point to is that the starting point for how we evaluate racism are formally and openly racist societies, expressed through white supremacist states like the Jim Crow regime and ideological constructs like race science, whereas the starting point for how cultural appropriation is understood are the grievances of very specific groups. In one case we're going "top-down" and looking at the legacy of colonial, imperial and class history and seeing the reflections in contemporary society, whereas in the other case we're going "bottom-up" by looking at specific cultural events and trying to find things that look similar and condemn them on the basis of that similarity. They're not the same method, and critically the way we understand racism is inherently rooted in a historical context while cultural appropriation isn't. Okay, but these societies rarely call(ed) themselves racist, and the notion of racism (as a whole) as deriving from a legacy of power is a relatively recent one. CA is relatively new. There's arguably a worthwhile position in suggesting that appropriation predominates when what Robert Moore calls "the persecuting society" is forced to accommodate its minority subcultures, as opposed to imposition or extermination, for that matter. And CA in its original manifestation derived directly from the history of assault on Native cultures and was contemporaneous with the height of Indian schools. Thug Lessons posted:You can probably puzzle that one out on your own. Okay, you seem to be using it for any cultural interaction, which is why I'm curious. Because a) cultural exchange is often used for a subset of two-way cultural interactions and b) I don't think that cultural interactions have to be two-way to be just or to avoid being unjust.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why is that the starting point? According to whom? It's the starting point historically, how people got interested in the concept. American Indians didn't develop of theory of cultural appropriation and only then realize the war bonnet stuff was offensive, it was the other way around, and recently people have started to generalize this into a concept that applies to cultural exchange generally. quote:I keep waiting for you to make an argument but you just assert repeatedly This goes back to how I'm not going to jump through hoops for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We should always be aware when black is used to mean bad and white is used to mean good. Are you saying we shouldn't? Black was frequently linked with the night, which was viewed as evil because humans are diurnal. Also, black smoke is viewed as worse than the white one, because the former is full of carbonized particles and toxic, while the latter consists only of vaporized water particles. Trying to link it to racial relations is beyond stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's the starting point historically, how people got interested in the concept. American Indians didn't develop of theory of cultural appropriation and only then realize the war bonnet stuff was offensive, it was the other way around, and recently people have started to generalize this into a concept that applies to cultural exchange generally. And Black people didn't develop the theory of racism and only then realize that being treated like subhumans was offensive. At the heart, I don't get this objection at all: this term is newer than other terms? quote:This goes back to how I'm not going to jump through hoops for you. To me this is that your'e just going to make flabby assertions and not back them up, and also claim that your experiences are the true experiences and that if I say differently I'm lying and naive, which was really deeply dumb of you and makes you look insanely unreasonable. You can't even conceive that your experiences might not be representative. I'm completely fine with you not defending your assertions and just continuing to assert without support. That's no skin off my back, and I don't think I'm being cheated of your argument because I don't actually think you have one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Black was frequently linked with the night, which was viewed as evil because humans are diurnal. Also, black smoke is viewed as worse than the white one, because the former is full of carbonized particles and toxic, while the latter consists only of vaporized water particles. Trying to link it to racial relations is beyond stupid. And then those metaphorical concepts were applied to people, and the terms have been racially weighted ever since. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are not black or white, they are different shades of brown, beige and tan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:27
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Black was frequently linked with the night, which was viewed as evil because humans are diurnal. Also, black smoke is viewed as worse than the white one, because the former is full of carbonized particles and toxic, while the latter consists only of vaporized water particles. Trying to link it to racial relations is beyond stupid. Unfortunately, whitey, so long as people are going to be described in terms of colors, we should probably avoid having any of those colors be primarily negative or positive.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
I'm glad that we finally have a faux-left megathread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:33
|
|
Miltank posted:I'm glad that we finally have a faux-left megathread. What's real leftism, then?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's not what actually happened, no. I just pointed out that 'comorbid' specifically means two things are different. You are, again, ignoring this. Can you see the irony of calling terms vague and then ignoring the precise term 'comorbid'? What was said was the arguements against something not being racism are comorbid with the arguments against something not being CA. Which is a not-remotely-subtle implication that CA is racism, or that people arguing against it are racists. At the very least it's yet another attempt to conflate the two in order make it look like people arguing against the idea of CA are defending racism. This also doesn't change the fact I found two examples and the other was perfectly valid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
Jarmak posted:What was said was the arguements against something not being racism are comorbid with the arguments against something not being CA. Which is a not-remotely-subtle implication that CA is racism, or that people arguing against it are racists. At the very least it's yet another attempt to conflate the two in order make it look like people arguing against the idea of CA are defending racism. No, that's not what was said. I said that holding a particular racist belief was comorbid with denying CA, among people in this thread, get it loving right.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, that's not what was said. I said that holding a particular racist belief was comorbid with denying CA, among people in this thread, get it loving right. You're right, that makes my point that much stronger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
All will be explained in detail if you just read my 30 page essay on why JK Rowling's so-called 'dark' arts are an erasure of traditional native magics and spiritual techniques.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And Black people didn't develop the theory of racism and only then realize that being treated like subhumans was offensive. Black people didn't generalize being oppressed into a theory of racism, contemporary ideas came about through hundreds-years-long struggle first against slavery, then against Jim Crow, then against new institutional racism, in addition to a worldwide struggle against imperialism and colonialism. Simultaneously, the other side was doing the same thing, with (often explicitly, openly, nominally) racist legal, scientific and cultural frameworks. Our modern understanding of racism comes from a long iterative process with contributions from all levels from scholarly to artistic to interpersonal. Cultural appropriation, on the other hand, came about when people looked at a few isolated conflicts and decided, "I think we can apply the concept at work here to a whole host of other situations". The problem isn't the relative age of the concepts it's the historical context they were developed in. It doesn't have the historical context to back it up, so of course it's weaker. quote:To me this is that your'e just going to make flabby assertions and not back them up, and also claim that your experiences are the true experiences and that if I say differently I'm lying and naive, which was really deeply dumb of you and makes you look insanely unreasonable. You can't even conceive that your experiences might not be representative. The reason I don't "defend my assertions" is because you give me twenty questions, (usually quoting a sentence and saying something to the effect of "Says who?" or "Prove it."), every time I make a post instead of offering a contradicting viewpoint and I'm not really interested in answering all of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:45
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're right, that makes my point that much stronger. No, it doesn't, because you still don't know what "comorbid" means, and you're perfectly okay with calling people racist so long as they're on the wrong side anyways, so you have no ground to stand on. You're just whining because someone said something mean to you. Miltank posted:All will be explained in detail if you just read my 30 page essay on why JK Rowling's so-called 'dark' arts are an erasure of traditional native magics and spiritual techniques. What is real leftism?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What was said was the arguements against something not being racism are comorbid with the arguments against something not being CA. Not quite, no. quote:I know, it's hosed-up that such a racist position is comorbid with denying the existence of cultural appropriation. It wasn't about 'something' being or not being cultural appropriation, it was about the existence of cultural appropriation. I'm sorry, I kind of forget whether you think there's no such thing as cultural appropriation or you think there is but it's mislabelled all the time, or what. quote:Which is a not-remotely-subtle implication that CA is racism, or that people arguing against it are racists. Much of cultural appropriation is either enabled by racism or comes from racism or perpetuated racism. however, I pointed out a case where I don't feel it does, so they're not the same, nor is one just the subset of the other. Do you disagree that racism and cultural appropriation are linked or something? I really don't get what you're arguing here. Even if you proved 100% that someone was treating cultural appropriation as a subset of racism, where does that get you in your argument?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And then those metaphorical concepts were applied to people, and the terms have been racially weighted ever since. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are not black or white, they are different shades of brown, beige and tan. Asians are also not yellow, but this was the color they were assigned. Does it symbolize anything on good/evil scale or maybe it's more about Paragon/Renegade axis? Effectronica posted:Unfortunately, whitey, so long as people are going to be described in terms of colors, we should probably avoid having any of those colors be primarily negative or positive. In this case, black smoke is really worse than the white one, as in it has more compounds that will seriously gently caress up your lungs in the long run. Its presence also generally means there is something wrong with your furnace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:50
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Asians are also not yellow, but this was the color they were assigned. Does it symbolize anything on good/evil scale or maybe it's more about Paragon/Renegade axis? Well, gweilo, that's irrelevant to what I said, and is just you puling about how stupid anything other than braindead philosophical materialism is.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
cultural appropriation isn't real you homos! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Black people didn't generalize being oppressed into a theory of racism, contemporary ideas came about through hundreds-years-long struggle first against slavery, then against Jim Crow, then against new institutional racism, in addition to a worldwide struggle against imperialism and colonialism What do you mean by 'contemporary ideas', and yes, black people did generalize being oppressed into a theory of racism. Have you read The Souls of Black Folk, or the reams of other black writing on the subject, pre-contemporary? quote:Simultaneously, the other side was doing the same thing, with (often explicitly, openly, nominally) racist legal, scientific and cultural frameworks. Our modern understanding of racism comes from a long iterative process with contributions from all levels from scholarly to artistic to interpersonal. There isn't a coherent modern understanding of racism, it depends on context, and people disagree about the distinctions and borders all the time. But again, is your only charge here that cultural appropriation is a new term? quote:Cultural appropriation, on the other hand, came about when people looked at a few isolated conflicts and decided, "I think we can apply the concept at work here to a whole host of other situations". The problem isn't the relative age of the concepts it's the historical context they were developed in. It doesn't have the historical context to back it up, so of course it's weaker. Why do you call it 'a few isolated conflicts' --how are they isolated? It happened to every Native American culture in all parts of the Americas, it happened to the black population in the US over and over in various formats, to the Roma population in Europe, to the Jewish population in Europe, etc. etc. What analysis have you used to determine these are 'isolated' and not usefully analogous? quote:The reason I don't "defend my assertions" is because you give me twenty questions, (usually quoting a sentence and saying something to the effect of "Says who?" or "Prove it."), every time I make a post instead of offering a contradicting viewpoint and I'm not really interested in answering all of that. My contrasting viewpoint is that cultural appropriation happens in an analogously similar way in disparate environments: a minority group's cultural artifact or tradition is lifted out of its context, given a new context in the majority culture that strips away tons of the original information or cultural values of the artifact or tradition, is often commercialized, and the usage by the dominant population is so frequent that people treat it as the real thing. This has a number of effects, from economically depriving a group to making people feel really lovely to perpetuating stereotypes to simply erasing culture. The remedy for almost all of these things is behaving like decent human beings, trying to involve the group who's culture you're really into, recognizing the destructive power of commercialization, etc. etc. There are quite trivial aspects of cultural appropriation, there are also gigantic gently caress-off ones; they are not all at the same level. You haven't offered anything against this, except what is to me a very confusing history of the invention of racism as a concept which doesn't match up to reality--racism was not a 'top-down' concept, black people completely understood that they were oppressed by a system of white supremacism and did come up with a theoretical framework to descibe it, most eloquently put, I feel, in W.E.B. DeBois' The Souls of Black Folk. There was even a competing popular black conceptualization, in that of Booker T. Washington.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, gweilo, that's irrelevant to what I said, and is just you puling about how stupid anything other than braindead philosophical materialism is. Well, he's correct on that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, gweilo, that's irrelevant to what I said, and is just you puling about how stupid anything other than braindead philosophical materialism is. Said the guy raging against racist portrayal of trains from a children cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What do you mean by 'contemporary ideas', and yes, black people did generalize being oppressed into a theory of racism. Have you read The Souls of Black Folk, or the reams of other black writing on the subject, pre-contemporary? It seriously boggles my mind that people in this forum want to argue like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:03
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Said the guy raging against racist portrayal of trains from a children cartoon. Now we get to the part of the GBS checklist where you say someone is mad.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It seriously boggles my mind that people in this forum want to argue like this. Like what? You asked for my contrasting viewpoint, I put it up, and then you mocked me for putting it up. This is after, can I remind you, you said that your experiences were true, and that if I claimed to have experienced anything different i must be lying or naive. Do you regret that in the least, or are you sticking to your guns and saying that anyone who says they've had a different experience than you with cultural appropriation used as a term is disingenuous or hopelessly naive? I really, really think that your ideas about the development of racism are a hot mess and you're not able to disentangle them or explain them in any way that makes sense. I don't think you can explain how incidences of cultural appropriation are 'isolated' but incidences of racism are not. Feel free to prove me wrong, but what I'm getting from you is you just want to have a conversation and actually backing up what you say is kinda beneath you, that poo poo's for nerds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It seriously boggles my mind that people in this forum want to argue like this. But what is forum? Could you define the concept? Let's suppose we discuss at 4chan, does it still count as a forum? What if we communicate by encrypted mail instead and then disseminate each post to everyone else? What if we communicate by clay tablets? My point is, you can't prove we use forums instead of communicating with any other medium, therefore your exasperation is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
Gantolandon posted:But what is forum? Could you define the concept? Let's suppose we discuss in 4chan, does it still count as a forum? What if we communicate by encrypted mail instead and then disseminate each mail to everyone else? What if we communicate in the clay tablets? Now we get to the part of the GBS checklist where the whining becomes pitiful.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:But what is forum? Could you define the concept? Let's suppose we discuss at 4chan, does it still count as a forum? What if we communicate by encrypted mail instead and then disseminate each mail to everyone else? What if we communicate by clay tablets? That's kind of mocking your side, actually. i'm saying that communicating at 4chan or here are both communicating on forums. You guys are saying that 'cultural appropriation' is an unsuitable term because of 'reasons' and we shouldn't talk about it/it is actively bad to talk about it. One of the dangers of parody is how quickly it becomes self-parody.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Now we get to the part of the GBS checklist where the whining becomes pitiful. Could you define what do you mean by this mysterious thing called "GBS"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Could you define what do you mean by this mysterious thing called "GBS"? You. Thug Lessons posted:It seriously boggles my mind that people in this forum want to argue like this. Do you genuinely want an opposing viewpoint, or are you just going to complain no matter what?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
GBS!!!! (!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Okay. I feel that "cultural appropriation" is useful, because it paves the way for the idea that people should be able to define their identities and selves, and not have them imposed on them by others. I also feel that it's useful because it sums up the ways a number of subcultures feel they are treated by the primary culture. I also believe it to be useful because the people it pisses off are usually venial to the extreme. Miltank posted:GBS!!!! (!) What is real leftism?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's kind of mocking your side, actually. i'm saying that communicating at 4chan or here are both communicating on forums. You guys are saying that 'cultural appropriation' is an unsuitable term because of 'reasons' and we shouldn't talk about it/it is actively bad to talk about it. It's just that when you discuss this topic, you try to stall as much as possible - misinterpret words and discuss their other meanings (like when you couldn't understand how can anyone say that outrage could be invalid) and demand everyone to give you a definition of every concept they used. When this doesn't work, you escape into solipsism and pretend no one can really define anything, because it's in their heads. Sprinkle it with some passive-aggressive suggestions, like "You can ignore other people's outrage if you don't care", write it to span several paragraphs packed with text and you get a wholesome Obdicut post. The end result gets as much content as Effectronica's one-liners, but people have to spend several minutes on reading and analysis to realize this. This makes them much more annoying and tiresome. To sum this up, I suspect you gave up on discussing and are trying to win by wearing your opponents down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:27
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's just that when you discuss this topic, you try to stall as much as possible - misinterpret words and discuss their other meanings (like when you couldn't understand how can anyone say that outrage could be invalid) and demand everyone to give you a definition of every concept they used. When this doesn't work, you escape into solipsism and pretend no one can really define anything, because it's in their heads. Sprinkle it with some passive-aggressive suggestions, like "You can ignore other people's outrage if you don't care", write it to span several paragraphs packed with text and you get a wholesome Obdicut post. The end result gets as much content as Effectronica's one-liners, but people have to spend several minutes on reading and analysis to realize this. This makes them much more annoying and tiresome. How can you have a discussion on this issue with you, when anyone who has a different opinion on the matter has exactly the opinion you think is bad, and is also furious? How can you discuss ephemeral concepts with a materialist meaningfully? Why should people discuss things with you, when you have demonstrated you have no interest in discussing things? edit: By the way, I'm gonna take a page out of your book and assume that you're arguing in favor of child molestation if you disagree with me on this. Fair warning.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
I don't have to be able to isolate some distilled essence of leftism to recognize that cultural appropriation is a windmill for liberals to tilt at. E:v lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:38
|
|
Miltank posted:I don't have to be able to isolate some distilled essence of leftism to recognize that cultural appropriation is a windmill for liberals to tilt at. What is real leftism?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What is real leftism? about as effective as fake leftism 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's just that when you discuss this topic, you try to stall as much as possible - misinterpret words and discuss their other meanings (like when you couldn't understand how can anyone say that outrage could be invalid) and demand everyone to give you a definition of every concept they used. When this doesn't work, you escape into solipsism and pretend no one can really define anything, because it's in their heads. Sprinkle it with some passive-aggressive suggestions, like "You can ignore other people's outrage if you don't care", write it to span several paragraphs packed with text and you get a wholesome Obdicut post. The end result gets as much content as Effectronica's one-liners, but people have to spend several minutes on reading and analysis to realize this. This makes them much more annoying and tiresome. To clarify: Obdicut you argue like fishmech
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's just that when you discuss this topic, you try to stall as much as possible - misinterpret words and discuss their other meanings (like when you couldn't understand how can anyone say that outrage could be invalid) and demand everyone to give you a definition of every concept they used. I don't, though. When someone says that cultural appropriation is too vague a term, I ask why. That's because it's the topic of the thread, and important. I don't ask it about every concept. You can tell this because there's very few things I've asked for the definition of. quote:When this doesn't work, you escape into solipsism and pretend no one can really define anything, because it's in their heads. Sprinkle it with some passive-aggressive suggestions, like "You can ignore other people's outrage if you don't care", write it to span several paragraphs packed with text and you get a wholesome Obdicut post. The end result gets as much content as Effectronica's one-liners, but people have to spend several minutes on reading and analysis to realize this. This makes them much more annoying and tiresome. I've never said anything close to nobody being able to define anything, in the least. That's kind of what I"m arguing against, actually, that even if you can't come up with a technical, precise definition of cultural appropriation (or racism, or sexism) they are still useful umbrella concepts. If you think I've said something like "You can't really define anything because it's in their heads", then quote that post. You can't, because it's bullshit: i never said anything like that. quote:To sum this up, I suspect you gave up on discussing and are trying to win by wearing your opponents down. That must be why I just restated my contentions--that cultural appropriation is not isolated--and gave reasons why. Do you want to talk about cultural appropriation? Do you agree with Thug Lessons that cultural appropriation exists in isolated and unrelated incidents, as opposed to racism? Do you have any problems with what I said about cultural appropriation, or anything you want clarity on?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:02
|
|