rudatron posted:

Is your process of debate simply ascribing opinions to people that they themselves have never said?

-Troika- posted:

That's exactly what it is. Effectronica argues with the imaginary people in his head, not with us

blowfish posted:

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.

blowfish posted:

It's super effective (at providing comedy for everyone else) though

Exclamation Marx posted:

What's with the weird misdirected transphobia

Effectronica posted:

Do you really not see the difference between "cultures don't need to be isolated to exist" and "cultures are invulnerable to any possible harm"?

Effectronica posted:

rudatron posted:

I don't believe it's possible to take a single example and extrapolate a curve from that, effectronica. In the abstract, I agree that it's possible that my accusations of insecurity conform to whether some other subject conforms to my beliefs, because I am a human being, and confirmation bias is something that affects all humans. I do not, however, (specifically) believe that non-agreement with my own beliefs implies insecurity, or anything like that. That's obvious nonsense. How you came to that conclusion, I do not know. I came to the conclusion I did because I believe it is the best way to explain their behavior and, in general, I believe it to be the best way to explain the behavior I have seen on this subject.

And to the contrary, arguing about the motivations of groups and individuals is a staple of DnD. What is the aims of the whitehouse in saying this or pushing that? Why is this country saying that but doing that? My goal here is not to invalidate, but resolve. To feel part of a group, part of something that will protect your interests when you're not able, to find belonging, these are powerful motivators for any person. I don't want to deny that kind of fulfillment to anyone. What I want to attack is the search for or protection of authenticity, which I have exactly 0% respect for.

As for tolerance, exactly what proof are you looking for? If you want direct causal proof of the ideology of tolerance on inter-group estrangement, or whether they are both created by a hidden factor (or not, and they're just unrelated), that's not something either I or anyone else in the world could provide to you. We cannot see things as they are, if anyone could this discussion (and indeed, all political discussions) would be superfluous - it's be 'proven' and settled. There are, however, suggestive points to consider. First, de facto residential segregation is prevalent everywhere, even in cities where you would expect the population to be progressive (new york for example). In spite of society adopting this norm of tolerance, metrics on racism have barely changed over the last decade, sometimes going backwards slightly. There are 2 possible explanations: the advancement of 'tolerance' has halted, or that this is the end-state of tolerance as practiced. The first is an insufficient explanation, for even if you assume that there is an Other opposing it, isn't the point of 'tolerance' to overcome such barriers? It's not as if it hasn't been applied with zeal, it has. It can go no further. If it is unable to, then that means it is insufficient. We are left with the 2nd conclusion: this is the end-state of tolerance. This environment we have, with the sharp boundaries, is as far it will take us. People will tolerant the Other, but they will always remain foreign.

As for your claims, I have no idea. I am riding the arguments as they appear. I think you want to protect people you see as vulnerable, which is fine. But I'm neither threatening nor advocating any threats to the respect or welfare of any minority. Everyone deserves to live a fulfilling life.

Effectronica posted:

many, many, many

Arglebargle III posted:

Have you guys ever been to an Obama Fried Chicken?

Arglebargle III posted:

Have you guys ever been to an Obama Fried Chicken?

Effectronica posted:

rudatron posted:

You're missing the point: tolerance as a policy is only as good as its results, and this is its results. That people oppose it is no reason to say that it has 'not been done enough', otherwise you may as well take the position that X-cannot-fail-only-be-failed. The same American conservatives that you describe have themselves adopted the rhetoric of tolerance: opposing prayer in school is automatically labelled as 'intolerance' or some such similar nonsense. Why? If the idea of tolerance had not become so widespread as I claim, and it is as you claim, that it is marginalized, why would they bother? Remember, they're trying to appeal to the rest of society. It's because they have my view in their mind, as does everyone else, and as do you. You are being intolerant if you are 'intruding' on this space. You simply believe that this will make racism go away, and from racism's continued existence, conclude it hasn't gone far enough eg- people don't value it highly enough.

But how can I say you have this view as well? You've denied it, and it's rude of me to double-guess that, right? But now we return to the kimono: you said it was bad when it is no longer a signifier of a that culture. Why? Because you're not simply saying that members of a group are allowed to decide what is important to them, you're decided they must also be allowed to declare something as unique to them, ie: impose a constraint on every other group they interact with. When you generalize it, you immediately see the problem: that is a desire to remain distinct from the Other, to create distance. Why? To reduce the chance of harm. This is misguided. Of course, as with all interactions, all relationships between people, harm should be mitigated and malice punished. But resolution is impossible without risk.

Effectronica posted:

Effectronica posted:

The Other is everything that is outside the Self, and the continued existence of human consciousness keeps Self and Other distinct.

rudatron posted:

You haven't actually dealt with the point I put up: If tolerance is not a social norm, then why is everyone trying to appeal to it? Again, you're acting as if tolerance cannot fail, only be failed: if you simply believe it in enough, it will work. Do you ever stop to think what actually motivates opposition, and why you cannot demotivate them? Is your answer simply "they're wrong and dumb"? Because if it is, that's so incredibly simplistic and stupid, but it also defeats the point of advocating it: intrinsic qualities like that cannot be overcome. We are again left with this being the end state.

quote:

This however:
is wrong. In the context we are talking about, the Other is cultural. No mindlessness is necessary. The Other is simply something you do not understand. Having shared values and mutual obligations removes the mutual Otherization. My issue with the constraints of tolerance is not that they are constraints at all (as I said, all relationships should be regulated in some way), but that I don't like what they must create. You said I thought " "people should be allowed to define their own culture" counts as paternalism", which is wrong. It is good for people to have this right, to define themselves, but I refuse to grant to them the right to define others. If some religion (called, say, Mormonism) duplicated Christianity in full, then they are already distinct by the people who are a part of them - no regulation of what beliefs or cultural elements should be 'unique' to one or another is necessary. Perhaps the only exception is the name or trademark, but that is because people communicate with words - it's a matter of practicality whether you are referring to one thing or another. But I do not extend this right to any cultural elements.

Why? That seems harsh, right? But like I said, I have 0% respect for authenticity, the only culture that exists are the ones that currently exist in reality: to create an 'authentic' version to is magic some mythical past that cannot be true, some idealized form that exists only in your loving head. Existence precedes essence, so I do not respect any attempt to keep something 'authentic'. The 'Western' culture we share, effectronica, is not 'authentic'. It is what it is (I'm assuming, though I honestly don't know much about you. Are you actually transsexual, for example? Whatever gender or sexual orientation you are, and whatever you identify as, I want you to know I fully respect that choice).

Effectronica posted:

I mean, let's cut this down as far as possible- you, rudatron, do not see any way to avoid appropriation without freezing cultures in place, because you believe that the only way for cultures to change is to "appropriate" from one another, which you use to refer to "cultural exchange", which refers to any kind of situation where multiple cultures are in contact and at least one of them changes. Is this correct?

A big flaming stink posted:

jesus efftro he's saying that tolerance is insufficient to overcome the perception of the Other between different cultural groups and therefore cultural diffusion, including appropriation, ought to be downright encouraged to create the shared values and belief that allow one to overcome this otherization. Segregation, both self and externally imposed, have a fuckload of inertia behind them, so just letting things be isn't gonna be bridging gaps anytime soon.

Through this lens some of the arguments against cultural appropriation can be seen to be demanding this Otherization to remain. Like, these pieces of culture from minority groups ought to remain unknowable to anyone but the original culture because if they become part of the majority culture the shared values now present can threaten to subsume the minority culture wholesale (or something like that, not really sure how this whole thing goes).

Tolerance is not his central premise, its just his way of pointing out that Otherization ain't gonna overcome itself.

rudatron posted:

Effectronica, please stop addressing phantoms. If something I have said is unclear to you, please ask for my meaning - I will not think less of you for doing so. You have said many hateful things to me, that you do not like me is clear. I have no such dislike for you. In fact, I actually like you as a person, I enjoy your way of thinking. I am not engaging in this discussion because I want to 'trap' you with words, or embarrass or shame you. You said you think I view this as a conflict: I do not. What I want is resolution, understanding.

I do not believe that cultures may only change through exchange. I do not believe that cultural exchange is the only way for one culture to change another - one culture may violently impose conditions on another, and I believe that is wrong, in general (It can be justified, but is often not. I can count the number of reasons on my hand where it is justified, but usually imposition is driven by a superiority complex. I should only be done when practicality demands, and even then it's still regrettable). I believe that what you and others have called appropriation is cultural exchange with an already existing problem/inequality, that causes harm to the members of minority cultures. In this case, I oppose any attempt at stopping cultural appropriation, because I believe cultures should never be segregated, but fervently push for the existing problems/inequalities to be solved.

My definition of the Other is not distinct. You have accused me of using semantics to avoid debate, but I am not interested in a fight over the meaning of words. I'm only interested in the concepts behind the meanings. 'Other' can refer to your meaning, but it can also refer the social definition. The use of the word 'Other' would be impossible in the social context, were what you say true. But I would not have labored on this point, had you not used this as you did, to summon more phantoms.

I have stated my opposition to imposition - "it is good that people have the right to define their own culture". What you have not addressed is how sovereignty over one culture must necessarily extend to all connecting cultures. If the original culture is unable to remain distinct through normal means ('normal' here meaning 'without imposition') without this inter-culture sovereignty, was it ever really distinct in the first place? If one culture C1 contains elements {A}, and another C2, through appropriation, contains {A,B}, how is C1 destroyed by C2? C1 is already different from C2: No B. If C1, in the presence of C2, must inevitably contain B (and therefore become C2), without there being any imposition of that (it occurs through normal cultural diffusion), why does it matter? Why should I care? Those questions are not rhetorical.

I also asked you another question, which I wanted you to answer: "Do you ever stop to think what actually motivates opposition, and why you cannot demotivate them? Is your answer simply "they're wrong and dumb"?". You cannot simply blame a mysterious evil that is somehow insurmountable for the failures of policy. If the policy cannot deal with the people we have today, then it is worse then garbage - garbage can at least be recycled. You work with the people you have, not with the people you want. The later has a name: Utopianism.

rudatron posted:

I also ask that you do not bring other people's views into your arguments. I have no idea what TheImmigrant's beliefs are here, but I would strongly prefer he explain them himself. TheImmigrant, and indeed other readers, feel free to state your disagreements, or point out contradictions if you see them.

blowfish posted:

effectronica, serious question
if cultures appropriate stuff from each other because individual people think [other culture]'s poo poo is neat, where is the problem

Effectronica posted:

Everyone that is not you is an Other. The problem is not that people of a certain culture are Other, it is that there is a false sense that they are more an Other than some other people.

OwlFancier posted:

I think that is only true if you're an extremely insular person. Perceiving the entirety of humanity as uniformly alien isn't a common standpoint.

-Troika- posted:

Clearly, the only possible solution to cultural appropriation is strict racial and cultural segregation. Everyone should band together with only people like them and instinctively distrust any outsiders.

Effectronica posted:

Why don't you take your anger out in a more constructive way? I mean, whining is going to change nothing, but if you start assaulting and murdering liberals, maybe you can make a change in the world and you won't feel comically impotent.

-Troika- posted:

Clearly, the only possible solution to cultural appropriation is strict racial and cultural segregation. Everyone should band together with only people like them and instinctively distrust any outsiders.

Effectronica posted:

True, racism is sadly common, but I dunno why you're taking hold of the idea that people must be "uniformly alien" rather than basically similar. Maybe you think that you can look inside some people's heads, but not others?

OwlFancier posted:

So far as I can tell, otherness as it is used here is referring to a sense of alienation from a person, they are an Other because you don't identify with them sufficiently to be comfortable around them, which results in a very nagging sense of discomfort that makes it difficult to be entirely rational about them, to recognise that they are just like you and deserve as much consideration as you would want for yourself, even if your senses tell you otherwise.

I would venture that it is more common to feel that towards certain other people than it is to feel it towards everybody. If you don't feel that at all then you're fortunate, but still rather uncommon.

Effectronica posted:

Well, that's why I said racism, and also sexism, homophobia, etc. are sadly common, because this is why people feel that about specific groups and not others, and in the absence of such phenomena, you wouldn't have that alienation at all.

OwlFancier posted:

Possibly it works the other way around? That people have an instinctive reaction to things they find difficult to immediately understand, which manifests as a sense of alienation, which then produces things like racism and homophobia.

Essentially, that a thing isn't rational or helpful doesn't mean it isn't a real thing, and I'm not sure that you can disregard the effect it has simply because it's silly. If people weren't naturally prone to alienation that would make things easier certainly, but they do seem to be, so it's going to dictate some of their behavior, which is what is being described above.

Effectronica posted:

What. Definition. Are. You. Using. For. Appropriation?

blowfish posted:

people start copying things from cultures that they do not belong to

why should "culture a does things that only culture b used to do" lead to "culture b cannot do them anymore" unless culture b are literal hipster stereotypes who only do things that are underground which you probably haven't heard about

Effectronica posted:

First of all, whatever instinct there is is pretty malleable, since categories as broad as "white" and "male" and "straight" are ones that people accept wholeheartedly rather than subdividing them. This would be odd if we really were prone to alienating ourselves, since you'd think broad categories like those would not last and break down further, and yet they persist.

Second of all, the argument was that by merging cultures you could fix this problem, which would not be true if people really were prone to alienating themselves, because this unity would break down.

Third of all, we have documentation of the rise of race as an entity, and it doesn't really work that way. People didn't develop race as a category because Native Americans were unfathomable, it only developed as the exploitation of the Americas unfolded and unfathomability progressed alongside it.

blowfish posted:

feel free to give an example, preferably involving kimonos

OwlFancier posted:

At the risk of going full on I would venture that humans aren't very good at dealing with large groups of people properly. We work better in smaller groups, families, social circles, friend groups, that sort of thing. That is where you will find more thorough understanding between people. So I would argue that there is something of a natural limit to human sociability, we prefer smaller groups and have trouble extending that compassion indefinitely. This is where I would argue the sense of natural alienation comes in. We tend to establish fairly small, homogenous circles are naturally put off by things outside them.

Now, it's also likely true that the precise nature of our segregation is socially constructed, often overtly so, with people picking up on established ideas like race and gender and sexuality as lines to divide by, but some of it arguably is also less overt, we can more easily interpret and empathise with things we are immersed in, because we have more commonalities with people who grew up where we grew up, were taught the same things we were taught, and the like. The existence of distinct cultures is a natural breeding ground for alienation. If someone speaks a different language, has different social conventions, different religious affiliations and such, being alienated and unsettled by this is a pretty understandable reaction. Because we rely on our knowledge of social rules in order to function, if you feel like you don't know any of the social rules (or someone else is breaking yours) then you're going to feel isolated or offended, quite naturally.

I think that is the reason it is being suggested that cultural integration would be helpful, because without that springboard it becomes less probable that people will experience alienation towards one another.

Effectronica posted:

So let's say you have a ritual with a particular meaning, where people exchange gifts on a particular day to show generosity and love for one another. Now let's say that this ritual is practiced by a particular group within a broader culture, and the broader culture starts exchanging gifts on that day to show off how great consumption and spending money are, but with the same trappings of the original ritual- that is, they practice the basic ritual but with the meaning completely changed. Now, assuming that the subgroup isn't segregated completely, their ability to practice this ritual is minimal because people from the outside culture will engage in their version of the ritual and the people in the subgroup will be reciprocating under the new meaning, and the broader culture will be attempting to enculture everyone with its meaning. In other words, except among members of the subgroup that withdraw from society, they will be unable to maintain the old meaning because the new meaning is more pervasive and everyone they interact with will judge their actions under this meaning.

OwlFancier posted:

In that example, you could simply tell people the meaning of why you elect to do it, in either case. If they are people whose opinion matters to you, one would assume they would understand your meaning.

Specifically also, if the meaning important to you is generosity, the other party isn't required to understand, really. You can fulfil the importance of the ritual simply by doing it.

Effectronica posted:

In order to participate in the broader culture, you'll have to operate under its meaning of the more expensive the better. Operating under the subcultural meaning would mean being known as a lovely gift-giver, because you don't care about what's important- spending lots of money. Furthermore, interactions with people from outside the group have to operate against the belief that this ritual is about spending, and children will be encultured with the idea that the ritual is about spending. People won't be able to be initiated in the ritual because they will have the underlying belief that it's about something else, unless they reject the original culture. Which is why I said that they would have to be segregated to preserve the ritual. But if the majority culture adopted it meaning and all, or if it differentiated its version from the original ritual, then there wouldn't be any of these problems.

OwlFancier posted:

That assumes that everybody is incapable of comprehending the idea that things can mean different things to different people.

Which is a bit weird, to be honest. I do this regularly, lots of things have different meanings to me than they do to others, and those I care for understand that. It's not really segregated, the two meanings can coexist together, and even if someone rejects the meaning I ascribe to things, that doesn't prevent me from doing it anyway.

That a thing is superficially similar doesn't prevent people from understanding that it can mean something else. It might not make the difference immediately apparent but humans aren't so irrevocably thick that they can't comprehend the idea of two similar looking things being different.

Effectronica posted:

The point is that they're not superficially similar. They're utterly identical except that one is about showing that you care about somebody and the other is about spending as much money as possible. In order to engage with the outer culture without being a pariah, the subculture has to adopt the outer culture's practice, and can only maintain it among themselves and those people who adopt the culture. Except that their children will grow up with the practices of the outer culture being taught to them as well, meaning that they will at best view it as equally about love and money, and they themselves will have to live in an environment where they are constantly told what the meaning of the ritual is. Preserving the meaning requires withdrawal from the broader society, so that they can prevent this enculturation from happening. Which is a bad thing.