|
Cultures whose internal identities are 'threatened' by cultural appropriation must already be a part of the primary culture. Claims that the appropriation of certain cultural icons by outsiders somehow undermine the group's ability to self identify is a tacit admission of the group's status as little more than one of the hundreds of subcommunities within our primary culture. Appropriation is intimidating because it forces some natives (as just one example) who draw their own identities from within the primary culture, to realize that there is no difference between what they and the frat boys are doing- playing Indian. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 15, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:55 |
|
Let us English posted:Kimono weren't redefined as a neutral garment. They are a neutral garment. The're just a traditional form of dress worn on special occasions. There's no deeper cultural meaning to wearing Kimono to child's graduation ceremony than a suit. Thank you for calling Japanese-American and Chinese-American people white. rudatron posted:Outrage at cultural appropriation is either outrage at something irrelevant to the cultural appropriation (which may itself either be appropriate - economic inequality should always be fought) or outrage at a manufacture harm. For example, you manufacture the harm of some element not being a signifier of a specific culture, but that is part of the process of full assimilation into another culture. Outrage at this is outrage at process itself, a demand to end any cultural exchange more meaningful than a tourist trip. The basic problem with this thread is that the majority of people posting here are blatantly ignorant, like, as in someone with only a secondary-level sociology textbook knows more than they do, and so they say things that would be horrendously offensive if they knew things, but since they don't, they're merely frustrating. To begin with, not everyone assimilates and universal assimilation is a sign of oppression. I realize that you will dispute this statement because you don't know what "acculturation" means, and so are unable to understand things except as a death march towards a single monotonous culture. Continuing on, we have this ideology where exchange is one-way- the immigrant adopts the culture they have migrated into completely and annihilates any other identities. The punk becomes Brooks Brothers Corporate Boring. There is no alternative. What a bleak, dismal world you live in, rudatron. Alternatively, there is some ephemeral exchange between the culture migrated from and the culture migrated to, which has nothing to do with the notion of a migrant's subcultures or this disturbing inability to comprehend multiculturality on the individual level, and which is not something that anyone can point to. It just happens because you, rudatron, are an idiot, and have heard of these things called "appropriation" and "exchange" and "assimilation", but rather than look them up, you set about attempting to divine their relationship from first principles. rudatron posted:For those reading: note the similarities here with the language of tolerance. Tolerating involves creating a distance between you and the Other to reduce conflict, but it has a dual effect: no meaningful interaction can take place at that distance. 'Cultural appropriation' is closing that distance with the Other culture, and it is vital that this occurs. For example, approaching someone you love is a dangerous act - you open yourself up to harm and burden the other with responding. To never approach is to be perfectly tolerant. Yet that is a dismal existence, because positive change can only occur when tolerance is violated. I believe that this is merely a semantical argument, where the use of the word tolerant is assumed to refer to an arms-length relationship rather than attempting to locate the actual meaning used in practice. It's no surprise that this comes from philosophy, which has been increasingly divorced from that sort of down-in-the-muck interaction as different fields of study fission off. But the really funny part is that this is built around dictating authenticity. The younger Chinese-Americans, because they "have less accented English" (read: come to the improper conclusions), must necessarily have less psychological authenticity than older generations, who "speak their mind" (read: come to the proper conclusions). Thank you for telling people whether their beliefs are authentic or inauthentic. I think I'll close off by saying that you clearly have an inauthentic leftist perspective concealing a highly racialized fascist, which I can tell from your use of the word "insecurity" three times within a paragraph. Thug Lessons posted:It sort of did with Germany and France. Not in the extent that people are saying where cultures inevitably merge together in lieu of any direct barriers, which is what is being used to declare that any alternative to the current state of affairs, (only with the Secret Society of SJWs made to disappear without leaving blood on anyone's hands) is necessarily oppressive. Hell, even Germany still has some significant cultural divisions internally.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:31
|
|
Miltank posted:That is exactly what I was trying to get at. Cultures whose internal identities are 'threatened' by cultural appropriation must already be a part of the primary culture. Claims that the appropriation of certain cultural icons by outsiders somehow undermine the group's ability to self identify is a tacit admission of the group's status as little more than one of the hundreds of subcommunities within our primary culture. Appropriation is intimidating because it forces some natives (as just one example) who draw their own identities from within the primary culture, to realize that there is no difference between what they and the frat boys are doing- playing Indian. Personally, I believe that since you have repeatedly made insinuations about white people deciding things for minorities, and said authenticity was inherently bad as a concept, the fact that you're dictating things to minorities and using the idea of authenticity means that you should receive the death penalty pour encourager les autres.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Personally, I believe that since you have repeatedly made insinuations about white people deciding things for minorities, and said authenticity was inherently bad as a concept, the fact that you're dictating things to minorities and using the idea of authenticity means that you should receive the death penalty pour encourager les autres. Again, I have no idea what you mean by "deciding things for minorities."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Again, I have no idea what you mean by "deciding things for minorities." As near as I can tell he means you disagreed with someone who has minority status in a certain culture. i.e. You disagreeing with what is or is not offensive means you're deciding for people because of reasons. I'm a minority in the culture I live in and I think the majority group makes lovely food from my culture  . I'm calling this oppression and if you disagree with me you're deciding for me. Korean steaks are literally Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:42
|
|
Miltank posted:Again, I have no idea what you mean by "deciding things for minorities." The part where you said that if someone Native felt that cultural appropriation was a real thing they were "playing Indian". I feel that an example really should be made of you, to warn young and old alike about the dangers of letting your mouth get too far ahead of your brain. Let us English posted:As near as I can tell he means you disagreed with someone who has minority status in a certain culture. i.e. You disagreeing with what is or is not offensive means you're deciding for people because of reasons. You see through a glass eye, darkly. But to think, if only you had ended up an expat in Japan, you could be protesting the existence of Ainu right now...
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The part where you said that if someone Native felt that cultural appropriation was a real thing they were "playing Indian". I feel that an example really should be made of you, to warn young and old alike about the dangers of letting your mouth get too far ahead of your brain. Hmm nope, didn't say that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:16
|
|
Miltank posted:Hmm nope, didn't say that. Miltank posted:That is exactly what I was trying to get at. Cultures whose internal identities are 'threatened' by cultural appropriation must already be a part of the primary culture. Claims that the appropriation of certain cultural icons by outsiders somehow undermine the group's ability to self identify is a tacit admission of the group's status as little more than one of the hundreds of subcommunities within our primary culture. Appropriation is intimidating because it forces some natives (as just one example) who draw their own identities from within the primary culture, to realize that there is no difference between what they and the frat boys are doing- playing Indian. Quick! Get to revising!
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You see through a glass eye, darkly. But to think, if only you had ended up an expat in Japan, you could be protesting the existence of Ainu right now... Been there, done that. I imagine you'd join the Debito crowd if you ended up in Japan, complaining about microagressions whenever anyone asks you if you can use chopsticks. Also, how could you possibly extrapolate anything I've said to Ainu people or culture? Are you just picking words you know about Japan and racism out of a hat hoping one sticks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:22
|
|
Let us English posted:Been there, done that. I imagine you'd join the Debito crowd if you ended up in Japan, complaining about microagressions whenever anyone asks you if you can use chopsticks. Jesus loving Christ, I decide to finally, actually, call someone a racist outright and they're too dumb to get it. Holy poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Quick! Get to revising! I call it cultural appropriation right there in the quote so idk maybe just read the post again and think about it real hard or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Jesus loving Christ, I decide to finally, actually, call someone a racist outright and they're too dumb to get it. Holy poo poo. Look, if you wanted to talk about CA and Japanese minority groups you could have at least brought up Zainichi. Instead you bring up the Ainu, a people that has been thoroughly devastated by the dominant Japanese ethnic group but might be the only culture in history that the Japanese have not proudly taken from. Ainu food, clothing, religion, and language weren't really adopted into the dominant culture. Aside from a couple of restaurants and the odd names of a few towns in Hokkaido, you'd be hard pressed to find anything of Ainu origin in Japan without explicitly seeking it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:35
|
|
Miltank posted:I call it cultural appropriation right there in the quote so idk maybe just read the post again and think about it real hard or something. Ah, I see. You don't see why saying someone Native is "playing Indian" is anything other than innocent. Let us English posted:Look, if you wanted to talk about CA and Japanese minority groups you could have at least brought up Zainichi. Instead you bring up the Ainu, a people that has been thoroughly devastated by the dominant Japanese ethnic group but might be the only culture in history that the Japanese have not proudly taken from. Ainu food, clothing, religion, and language weren't really adopted into the dominant culture. Aside from a couple of restaurants and the odd names of a few towns in Hokkaido, you'd be hard pressed to find anything of Ainu origin in Japan without explicitly seeking it out. I didn't want to talk about cultural appropriation in the context of Japan, boyo.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Is your process of debate simply ascribing opinions to people that they themselves have never said? Quote where I said anything resembling 'a death march towards a single monotonous culture'. You will fail. You implied that cultural exchange has to be for equal value ("exchange for what"), I said that is farcical. How exactly would you bureaucratically account such exchanges? If some exchange is unidirectional, should it be forced to be bidirectional? It's absurd. This kind of exchange is improvised, and most definitely should not be quantified like that. I also don't believe that cultural exchange/appropriation should only be one way, and have never said such a thing. This is, again, you manufacturing opinions to defeat. I would rather take the view that they not be interfered with, for any end. And then we come to 'dictating authenticity', where you miss the point. Here's the secret: Nothing is authentic. Neither the young nor old are 'authentic'. I was talking about what they believed about themselves. You can see the dynamic at play, in the video. In one instance, the same food that is lambasted by one group is agreed to be 'authentic' by the other. Why? What caused that difference? What motivated that choice? The young speak perfect American English because they had to have been raised in America, subject to that culture. People being a product of their environment, they must have taken in exactly what they are railing against. They aren't inauthentic by my standards. They are inauthentic by their own. rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I didn't want to talk about cultural appropriation in the context of Japan, boyo. Because talking about CA outside of the context of North America really shows how useless the concept is for identifying oppression. If some ABC or Nisei teenager is right in calling Asian inspired fast food "cultural appropriation" and therefore racist, there's a lot of "racist" bad food in East Asia that the same argument could be applied to. I don't think mayonnaise pizza or Panda Express are worthy targets if your goal is to address the very real inequalities that exist in any society. But they sure work great if you want to feel superior to other people on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:49
|
|
rudatron posted:Is your process of debate simply ascribing opinions to people that they themselves have never said? Quote where I said anything resembling 'a death march towards a single monotonous culture'. You will fail. You implied that cultural exchange has to be for equal value ("exchange for what"), I said that is farcical. How exactly would you bureaucratically account such exchanges? If some exchange is unidirectional, should it be forced to be bidirectional? It's absurd. This kind of exchange is improvised, and most definitely should not be quantified like that. My process of debate consists of baiting people into saying the magic words "process of debate", at which point my jaws open wide and swallow them whole. Like, you simply don't understand what the word "exchange" means, you don't have any sense of the vocabulary used when talking about culture- you are talking out of your rear end. I'm not going to humor you and treat you like your opinions deserve any sort of respect, because they deserve as much as creationism would in a conversation about biology. You are dictating what is and is not proper as an opinion for these people to have, by saying that "they're insecure about the 'authenticity' of their cultural identity, and so try and prove it to others by creating distance between their own identity and what is presented (a chinese-inspired american franchise)" and "The elders, having no such insecurity, simply speak their mind.", even though you are disclaiming any such thing. You are overtly, obviously, obstinately insisting that there is one interpretation, and it is the one where the thing you dislike is revealed to be contemptible, against any others. This is, even without proposing any others, frankly disturbing. This suggests a major difficulty with understanding your own actions, or else that you are a bald-faced liar. Which you would rather it be is probably the only interesting thing that will ever come out of your posts. Let us English posted:Because talking about CA outside of the context of North America really shows how useless the concept is for identifying oppression. If some ABC or Nisei teenager is right in calling Asian inspired fast food "cultural appropriation" and therefore racist, there's a lot of "racist" bad food in East Asia that the same argument could be applied to. I don't think mayonnaise pizza or Panda Express are worthy targets if your goal is to address the very real inequalities that exist in any society. But they sure work great if you want to feel superior to other people on the internet. I think, for real, that it's disgusting that someone will write at length about how awful it is to impute other opinions onto other people, and then look the other way when someone does it because they have the right opinions or because they don't read, don't think, are barely human beings. The latter seems a lot more likely because virtually everything you say is idiotic. Not just in that post, no, the sheer dumbness spreads out to contaminate anything else you write. It's like you have this picture in your head, that everything must comply with, and nothing anyone else says can break through your skull. Only breaking your keyboard/laptop over your head might. But you're projecting here, so I shouldn't be too mean. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ah, I see. You don't see why saying someone Native is "playing Indian" is anything other than innocent. E:^ faaaart
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:54
|
|
Miltank posted:I give you permission to respond to my post as if the words "playing Indian" were not in it. Too slow on the revision, and it's just the cherry on the sundae of "If you feel that your culture is endangered, you aren't a part of it neener neener" that your post solely consists of. It'd be funny if it weren't for the danger that would come if someone important got wind of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Are you drunk?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
I'd think of "playing" in the context of playing a part in the social script. Being aware of a social role makes one have to choose whether to continue to play that part or go by other parts in social script(s) or make up your own. By being told by an outsider that such a practice is no longer something of a specific local tradition, but instead, a wider definition made by the hegemonic culture (Indian, which lumps many unlike local cultures into one culture), you are suddenly faced with a choice of whether or not and in what ways to represent all of that definition put upon you to that hegemony whenever you interact with. Basically someone throws a second script at you and you have to choose whether to humor those writers or not in addition to doing everything the first script told you to do.
Rodatose fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
So, you've failed to substantiate any of your claims of my position. Rather than reconsider, you double down. When did I ever say their opinions where 'inauthentic'? I have argued they're motivated by different things, something which, too you, the mere suggestion of is proof that I'm dehumanizing them. Were you to interact with other people, you would notice that many things motivate people - shame, guilt, hope, etc. People are not honest and can sometimes not be aware of what motivates them, and that is normal. That does not make anyone sub-human, it's just part of being alive, something we all deal with. One kind of motivation does not make someone inherently worse than another, they're all part of the package of being human. But from your language, it seems you don't want to engage anymore. If you want to resume, I will be here. If you don't, I can't force you to do anything. edit: Rodatose posted:I'd think of "playing" in the context of playing a part in the social script. Being aware of a social role makes one have to choose whether to continue to play that part or go by other parts in social script(s) or make up your own. By being made aware that such a practice is not something of a specific local tradition, but instead, a wider definition made by the hegemonic culture (Indian, which lumps many unlike local cultures into one culture), you are suddenly faced with a choice of whether or not and in what ways to represent all of that definition put upon you to that hegemony whenever you interact with. Basically someone throws a second script at you and you have to choose whether to humor those writers or not in addition to doing everything the first script told you to do. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:13
|
|
Miltank posted:Are you drunk? Miltank posted:That is exactly what I was trying to get at. Cultures whose internal identities are 'threatened' by cultural appropriation must already be a part of the primary culture. Claims that the appropriation of certain cultural icons by outsiders somehow undermine the group's ability to self identify is a tacit admission of the group's status as little more than one of the hundreds of subcommunities within our primary culture. Appropriation is intimidating because it forces some natives (as just one example) who draw their own identities from within the primary culture, to realize that there is no difference between what they and the frat boys are doing- playing Indian. Why don't you explain what you really meant by this post, because what it amounts to is declaring that minorities who care about the misuse of Lakota spirituality are not actually Lakota, they're just pretending to be Lakota. This is not only grotesquely racist in and of itself as a statement, it comes down to a belief that you can dictate what is and is not a real culture or distinct culture or whatever will penetrate the walls of semantics that prevent you from ever having to think about things.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Every reply of yours on this page has just been made to completely dismiss an argument out of hand, so why not skip the bullshit and jerk yourself off without posting about it first.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:16
|
|
rudatron posted:So, you've failed to substantiate any of your claims of my position. Rather than reconsider, you double down. When did I ever say their opinions where 'inauthentic'? I have argued they're motivated by different things, something which, too you, the mere suggestion of is proof that I'm dehumanizing them. Where you to interact with other people, you would notice that many things motivate people - shame, guilt, hope, etc. People are not honest and can sometimes not be aware of what motivates them, and that is normal. That does not make anyone sub-human, it's just part of being alive, something we all deal with. One kind of motivation is not inherently worse than another, they're all part of the package of being human. Okay, so what we have here is semantics, or rather "semantics", followed by retreating to an easily-defensible position, like this was a loving war. If you want to treat this like a conflict, then I'd be glad to get to trying to murder you like a civilized human being, but why don't you defend your concrete statements if you don't want that? Because I was talking about your specific claims, namely that the people you disagree with obviously are insecure, because security only comes with conforming to your ideas, apparently. In any case, I would suggest that if you were to interact with other people in a social setting, you'd know that this rhetorical approach is the kind of thing that at best gets people to move to the other side of the room and at worst earns you a beating. Sadly, you haven't, or else are just taking comfort in the limited set of tools people have for dealing with your kind of behavior over the internet. Well, I'll just say that your mother clearly didn't smother you for long enough, much to her shame, and much to the anguish of the people around you. Funnily enough, you're not willing to defend your statements about tolerance as a concept, undoubtedly because it's so purely assertions that you got from somewhere else, maybe Zizek, maybe someone regurgitating him. Miltank posted:Every reply of yours on this page has just been made to completely dismiss an argument out of hand, so why not skip the bullshit and jerk yourself off without posting about it first. Your positions on this page have not been arguments. They have been asserting a particular statement axiomatically. Logical argument is, in Pokemon terms, "not very effective" against axiom-based polemics.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
I find in interesting that 95% of the thread agrees on what is or is not socially acceptable behavior, but emotions still manage to get out of control when talking about how to frame particular issues. Most of us agree that wearing a war bonnet is a douchey thing to do but the sticking point seems to be whether cultural appropriation is the best way to talk about the issue.Effectronica posted:In any case, I would suggest that if you were to interact with other people in a social setting, you'd know that this rhetorical approach is the kind of thing that at best gets people to move to the other side of the room and at worst earns you a beating. He says as he engages in personal attacks and implies a hyperbolic desire to murder someone. Let us English fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Effectronica, I don't seek conflict. I don't like hurting others. I do seek resolution. But if you wish to continue, then okay. Again, I will ask you to substantiate your previous claims, which you've failed to do 3 times now. I will also ask you to, additionally, quote where I (specifically no less) claimed that that people who disagree with me are obviously insecure. As for tolerance, you simply disagreed. What is there to defend? Where is your actual argument? Let us English posted:I find in interesting that 95% of the thread agrees on what is or is not socially acceptable behavior, but emotions still manage to get out of control when talking about how to frame particular issues. Most of us agree that wearing a war bonnet is a douchey thing to do but the sticking point seems to be whether cultural appropriation is the best way to talk about the issue. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why don't you explain what you really meant by this post, because what it amounts to is declaring that minorities who care about the misuse of Lakota spirituality are not actually Lakota, they're just pretending to be Lakota. This is not only grotesquely racist in and of itself as a statement, it comes down to a belief that you can dictate what is and is not a real culture or distinct culture or whatever will penetrate the walls of semantics that prevent you from ever having to think about things. I am only speaking to your claims about how culture is damaged by appropriation. I don't have anything to say about what things people find offensive, which I assume is what you mean by 'care'. I also don't mean to say that cultural appropriation is never bad. It is often quite bad because it is happening in a context of exploitation or racism. Your argument as I understand it, is that the primary culture threatens to destroy minority cultures by undermining the way that the minority culture understands itself. Is that right? If that is your claim, then I disagree. If its not then I would like you to better explain or to link me to a place that does. I don't want to type a lot more words refuting something that might not be your argument so maybe this will be the end of my post. Miltank fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 06:45
|
|
rudatron posted:Effectronica, I don't seek conflict. I don't like hurting others. I do seek resolution. But if you wish to continue, then okay. Nice sophistry, but it can't really work against effrons sincerity trolling insult poet setup
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Jesus loving Christ, I decide to finally, actually, call someone a racist outright and they're too dumb to get it. Holy poo poo. Jesus loving Christ, your point is so incoherent and stupid that nobody can take it seriously. Miltank posted:I am only speaking to your claims about how culture is damaged by appropriation. I don't have anything to say about what things people find offensive, which I assume is what you mean by 'care'. I also don't mean to say that cultural appropriation is never bad. It is often quite bad because it is happening in a context of exploitation or racism.  "the noble minority is defined only by the grim dark majority and therefore we must treat the mysterious Other (please don't call it that but accuse everyone else of doing so) as a bunch of hipsters. hipsterism is the light."
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 09:09
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!|
Just checking in on this thread and whoa, what did you guys do to Effectronica Like s/he was a bad poster before but this is just sad
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
i enjoy reading Effectronica's posts a lot actually i'd like to plead with u all do do something for me, like "in christs name, please consider that you may be wrong" type pleading: if you don't enjoy engaging with your fellow posters, please stop posting itt
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I am only speaking to your claims about how culture is damaged by appropriation. I don't have anything to say about what things people find offensive, which I assume is what you mean by 'care'. I also don't mean to say that cultural appropriation is never bad. It is often quite bad because it is happening in a context of exploitation or racism. Sorry but you haven't sufficiently leveled your sociology stat so your argument is ineffective, effectronica has at least level 3 is sociology so s/he only needs to respond by telling you your stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Posting about posting is definitely a good strat here in the D&D Cultural Appropriation tread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 13:46
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Posting about posting is definitely a good strat here in the D&D Cultural Appropriation tread. What thread, right now it's just Effectronica desperately trying to get the last word in by being enough of a jackass that everyone gets sick of hir and leaves hir alone in here
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
What is the virtue in preserving a culture to be a certain way? Why are cultural practices more valuable the older they are?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:What is the virtue in preserving a culture to be a certain way? They are not neccesarily more valuable outside of how people think about them, but therein is all the power they need. It'd be like if you tried to get Japan to end having an Emperor. I would understand it, but I would still be sad that an almost unbroken line of rulers for just over a thousand years had ended. It's still a "cultural" thing and I'd sure as poo poo not trade the existence of an Emperor for 1 life, but it would still be a sad thing to lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:What is the virtue in preserving a culture to be a certain way? Clipperton posted:What thread, right now it's just Effectronica desperately trying to get the last word in by being enough of a jackass that everyone gets sick of hir and leaves hir alone in here What's with the weird misdirected transphobia
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 14:59
|
|
rudatron posted:Effectronica, I don't seek conflict. I don't like hurting others. I do seek resolution. But if you wish to continue, then okay. You used a video, specifically saying that because the younger Chinese-Americans were more likely to use phrases like "appropriation" and "inauthentic" while the older Chinese-Americans were less likely to use such phrases, the younger people obviously were less secure in their identity and the older people more secure. That is, the people who consider appropriation a problem only do so because they're insecure, while secure people don't. Which aligns exactly with your opinions on "appropriation", including the definition of appropriation which I and a number of other people are using. So what happens when we apply this more generally, which is fairly obviously what you intended with the video? There's also not much point in offering any sort of contrary interpretation because there's no real resolution possible when arguing about the contents of someone else's head. The argument you made is that tolerance, as a concept in liberal politics, is identical to the dictionary definition. My response was that this is purely semantics that doesn't address whether people are using that definition when they refer to tolerance. You have nothing to substantiate it besides an assertion that there must be a link between how liberalism has used "tolerance" and the continuing mistreatment of minority groups and subcultures. There does not need to be a counter-argument in order for you to provide evidence. Finally, I'd like to know what you think my claims are, because a lot of people tend to argue against a sort of strawman figure that endorses things that are not actually said. (Fig. 1) hakimashou posted:What is the virtue in preserving a culture to be a certain way? Miltank posted:I am only speaking to your claims about how culture is damaged by appropriation. I don't have anything to say about what things people find offensive, which I assume is what you mean by 'care'. I also don't mean to say that cultural appropriation is never bad. It is often quite bad because it is happening in a context of exploitation or racism. No, my argument is that certain actions have the potential to damage minority cultures both by impairing the ability to practice culture and by threatening the ability of the minority culture to define its cultural institutions. Obviously you disagree with the latter, and probably not with the former, but your disagreement comes down to declaring that in order to be a really distinct culture, you need to have a sanitary cordon preventing you from being influenced by other cultures, or specifically the primary culture of the society. You phrased it in a really poor way, but the idea itself is rather ridiculous and actually, really, invokes the whole "artificially preserving cultures" notion that people have been attributing to me and to others. Jarmak posted:Sorry but you haven't sufficiently leveled your sociology stat so your argument is ineffective, effectronica has at least level 3 is sociology so s/he only needs to respond by telling you your stupid. Would you mind outlining the exact situations in which it's okay to dismiss people's statements because they're ignorant? Because so far I have "guns" and "the military", but are those special? Exclamation Marx posted:What's with the weird misdirected transphobia It's a cool GBS/offsite meme.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:What's with the weird misdirected transphobia I had no idea Effectronica was trans and had the exact same appraisal of this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, my argument is that certain actions have the potential to damage minority cultures both by impairing the ability to practice culture and by threatening the ability of the minority culture to define its cultural institutions. Obviously you disagree with the latter, and probably not with the former, but your disagreement comes down to declaring that in order to be a really distinct culture, you need to have a sanitary cordon preventing you from being influenced by other cultures, or specifically the primary culture of the society. You phrased it in a really poor way, but the idea itself is rather ridiculous and actually, really, invokes the whole "artificially preserving cultures" notion that people have been attributing to me and to others. So if cultures don't need to be cordoned off to continue to exist (a thing that I'd say is correct) then why do we need to go to any effort to prevent other cultures in the same area or somewhere else from ~*~appropriating~*~ things that whichever culture you are interested in does? And no, I don't care about tweens having an identity crisis if that's the extent of the problem or whatever the current sujet-du-jour is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:15
|
|