Effectronica posted:

I'm saying that you probably see problems with specific, particular cases but not with the process generally.

Effectronica posted:

This is presuming that people consciously choose to be encultured, which is false.This is presuming that people consciously choose to be encultured, which is false.

Crowsbeak posted:

This really describes how I see, why do we split hairs over this? When there are real issues that are causing people to be living in poverty, leading to homelessness, or even just allowing for the brutalization of the underclasses. We instead take issue with some media mogul making lovely music that is a shallow copy of a minorities music. That's the hill we want to die on.

wateroverfire posted:

There are tons of successful black artists what are you talking about. There were successful black artists playing Rock and Roll. There were white and black influences that fed into the genre and literally everyone playing was drawing on prior work as an influence.

There are also tons of artists of all ethnicities who never get picked up and promoted by a label despite being likeable and talented. Only a tiny minority of acts get that kind of support. The music biz has been like that since there was a music biz.

I suppose less successful musicians have been butthurt about that since there was a music biz, too, but so what?

Gantolandon posted:

The music biz promotes what it considers marketable. It's far from being a meritocracy.

wateroverfire posted:

In what sense could the music biz ever be a meritocracy?

edit:

Or maybe a different question is more appropriate. What do you mean by a meritocracy?

Is it an industry that promotes the artists who make the best work, however best is defined? Or one that supports artists to varying degrees depending on the quality of that work? Or something else?

edit2:

Or are you saying that many acts that aren't popular could be popular if only they were promoted, and because they aren't the business is not a meritocracy?

wateroverfire posted:

In what sense could the music biz ever be a meritocracy?

Gantolandon posted:

My point was that promotion is at least as much important as talent and quality of work and is pretty much a prerequisite to get multi-million dollar contracts.

Toph Bei Fong posted:

A business exists to make money (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919)). Therefore, an artist who makes the most money, ROI-wise, for the company is the best artist.

SedanChair posted:

Man every black artist you see just makes you grit your teeth huh. One's too many for the likes of you.

VitalSigns posted:

While of course you're right that it isn't "strictly true" that every white rapper makes more money than every black rapper, but that's not a very useful way of evaluating trends. Is it "strictly true" that every white applicant always gets hired over every black one? Is it "strictly true" that every white defendant escapes the death penalty and every black defendant gets a capital sentence? Is it "strictly true" that every gay couple is rejected by landlords in favor of a straight couple? No, no, and no, but that doesn't mean these trends don't exist.

VitalSigns posted:

As for James Franco, well, I'd say the role of gay people in contributing to the fashions and tastes that are overall an aspect of the wider culture is a bit more complicated. For a counterexample, consider the criticism that Madonna gets for vogue: copying a style from the underground gay scene and profiting from repackaging and selling it to a middle America that is willing to buy it only when it's sold by a straight woman. The people who created are shoved aside, because to America they are worthless, but America is perfectly willing to enjoy what they created as long as they can feel that their money and attention are going to someone "worthy".

Crowsbeak posted:

This really describes how I see, why do we split hairs over this? When there are real issues that are causing people to be living in poverty, leading to homelessness, or even just allowing for the brutalization of the underclasses. We instead take issue with some media mogul making lovely music that is a shallow copy of a minorities music. That's the hill we want to die on.

Omi-Polari posted:

Well, I see it as kind of a manufactured controversy. I remember one of big social media blow-ups of the day a few weeks ago was Beyonce being passed over for Beck at the Grammys. Okay, I don't know what kind of struggles Beyonce has had to deal with in her life. But she had the #2 best-selling album or something like that last year. Beyonce will be fine. Basically the left is spending a lot of time organizing around defending multi-millionaire celebrities in a struggle against other multi-millionaires and then wonders why no one wants to join them.

Blowdryer posted:

Saw this and figured I'd share it in this thread.

Breakdown from Rue of the Hunger Games on contemporary cultural appropriation of black culture.

Omi-Polari posted:

One of the points is that Iggy Azalea/Macklemore didn't speak out against the police killings of black men, while being white artists who appropriate black styles. But when did being a hip-hop artist require being political? (This same criticism, by the way, I don't see directed against Eminem.) I think she's putting a burden on musicians that you can't actually expect.

Omi-Polari posted:

One of the points is that Iggy Azalea/Macklemore didn't speak out against the police killings of black men, while being white artists who appropriate black styles. But when did being a hip-hop artist require being political? (This same criticism, by the way, I don't see directed against Eminem.) I think she's putting a burden on musicians that you can't actually expect.

Omi-Polari posted:

But when did being a hip-hop artist require being political?

quote:

(This same criticism, by the way, I don't see directed against Eminem.)

SedanChair posted:

Since the beginning.

SedanChair posted:

Oh no Ta-Nehisi Coates disagrees with me! I'M MELTING

SedanChair posted:

It's not being political all the time, it's just that if you have a connection to the culture that created hip-hop you will not be able to avoid these issues.

SedanChair posted:

It's not being political all the time, it's just that if you have a connection to the culture that created hip-hop you will not be able to avoid these issues.

Omi-Polari posted:

People created hip hop. And I wouldn't put a burden on them to be political if they don't want to be -- that's up to them and what they want to do with it.

TheImmigrant posted:

As a white Black man, this must weigh heavily upon you.

Effectronica posted:

hakimashou posted:

Because this isn't the real left. At the far ends of the political spectrum, there are a pair of cliffs. The benighted souls that for whatever reason find themselves that far out fall off. Down off the cliff, into oblivion.

Sure, it would be nice if these people got a grip and did something helpful instead, but the fringes have always been wastes of human talent, passion, and potential, and we all manage to get by without them. The right has a similar problem, but with a different set of are-you-serious nonsense. So, I think it all evens out.

If there was no howling at the moon right, it might become more of an issue to get these people in the game, but to be honest, I suppose some of their hearts are in the right place, let them tilt at their windmills. It's bad PR, but both sides have bad PR.

Anyway, it gives their idiots something to get upset about. As long as even some portion of the right is fighting its fever-dream private culture war, at least they aren't doing anything that matters.

Venom Snake posted:

Because nuking all of europe isn't on the fringe as far as ideas go right?

Venom Snake posted:

Because nuking all of europe isn't on the fringe as far as ideas go right?

Clipperton posted:

that's the sixth time in a row you've made the exact same post, congratulations

also lol the guy who wants to nuke europe is still coming across as way more sensible than effectronica and sedanchair

rudatron posted:

I don't agree that they do have to temporarily adopt any ritual. Assume you celebrate Christmas, would you alienate someone because they didn't, or because it was different? I wouldn't, and if someone did they're doing a bad thing, which the majority of people will recognize. You'd gain allies if that was the hill you fought on. But if, by exposition, they unconsciously adopt, then there's no solution for what you want here. Suppose that adoption was unconscious, would that only apply to appropriated practices? No, it wouldn't, it would happen at every interaction. Your logic relied on the 'need to communicate' after all. In view of that, aren't you just advocating a kind of 'limited segregation'? Where interaction is limited to some level you, personally, feel comfortable about? I'd rather be consistent: all walls must come down.

But now we come to the real issue, rarely spoken but often implied: "the new meaning will be taught to anyone entering the culture". Why is that a problem? Neither you nor I have the right to demand that someone else adopt our own meaningfulness. They make up their own mind, children especially are not their parent's property. Why does that results in dismantling? Assume there is value in the meanings of the smaller culture, that cannot be found elsewhere. Wouldn't that value-in-meaning always protect it? Alternatively, if meaning is arbitrary, then there is nothing special about one culture over another, so people will just go for the most exposed. So which is more likely?

But okay, we can escape that if there's some value in cultural diversity itself. You argue an analogy to intellectual diversity, but take an interesting perspective on that. The point of intellectual diversity is that differences are always opposed, then perhaps they resolve and new ones surface. Intellectual diversity doesn't exist because there are two people who have different opinions, who exist but who may never meet. The value in the diversity only exists in the interaction. Your demand that cultures not appropriate itself reduces the value from culture diversity, because you're reducing that interaction! What is the value in diversity of cultures if that diversity isn't experienced by anyone? If one culture swallows the other, that's not actually a big deal. New oppositions will always arise so long as the synthesis is still somehow incomplete. To demand that the cultural 'landscape' we have to day stays in place, forever, is to demand stasis. So rather that creating diversity in human thought, you're created a bunch of bubbles that just bounce off each other. At some point you have to let go. Having a 'little' bit of segregation isn't right, even if the power brokers in the minority culture might want that.

So no, I don't place any value in the cultural environment we have. Suppose Paradise Lost hadn't been written because some other culture had absorbed europe (say, the mongols - it's just an example). Would the world be culturally poorer? Assuming the same population/art expenditure, not really, because new things will always be produced. The world would be just as culturally rich, but different. The cultures we have today? Arbitrary. So why should value be placed in keeping them as they are? Sure, being part of a culture is a huge part of being a person, expressing yourself and so on. But there's no 'correct' culture, for any one person. Let people do what they want with culture, it's just a thing.

Clipperton posted:

that's the sixth time in a row you've made the exact same post, congratulations

also lol the guy who wants to nuke europe is still coming across as way more sensible than effectronica and sedanchair

rudatron posted:

I don't agree that they do have to temporarily adopt any ritual. Assume you celebrate Christmas, would you alienate someone because they didn't, or because it was different? I wouldn't, and if someone did they're doing a bad thing, which the majority of people will recognize. You'd gain allies if that was the hill you fought on. But if, by exposition, they unconsciously adopt, then there's no solution for what you want here. Suppose that adoption was unconscious, would that only apply to appropriated practices? No, it wouldn't, it would happen at every interaction. Your logic relied on the 'need to communicate' after all. In view of that, aren't you just advocating a kind of 'limited segregation'? Where interaction is limited to some level you, personally, feel comfortable about? I'd rather be consistent: all walls must come down.

But now we come to the real issue, rarely spoken but often implied: "the new meaning will be taught to anyone entering the culture". Why is that a problem? Neither you nor I have the right to demand that someone else adopt our own meaningfulness. They make up their own mind, children especially are not their parent's property. Why does that results in dismantling? Assume there is value in the meanings of the smaller culture, that cannot be found elsewhere. Wouldn't that value-in-meaning always protect it? Alternatively, if meaning is arbitrary, then there is nothing special about one culture over another, so people will just go for the most exposed. So which is more likely?

But okay, we can escape that if there's some value in cultural diversity itself. You argue an analogy to intellectual diversity, but take an interesting perspective on that. The point of intellectual diversity is that differences are always opposed, then perhaps they resolve and new ones surface. Intellectual diversity doesn't exist because there are two people who have different opinions, who exist but who may never meet. The value in the diversity only exists in the interaction. Your demand that cultures not appropriate itself reduces the value from culture diversity, because you're reducing that interaction! What is the value in diversity of cultures if that diversity isn't experienced by anyone? If one culture swallows the other, that's not actually a big deal. New oppositions will always arise so long as the synthesis is still somehow incomplete. To demand that the cultural 'landscape' we have to day stays in place, forever, is to demand stasis. So rather that creating diversity in human thought, you're created a bunch of bubbles that just bounce off each other. At some point you have to let go. Having a 'little' bit of segregation isn't right, even if the power brokers in the minority culture might want that.

So no, I don't place any value in the cultural environment we have. Suppose Paradise Lost hadn't been written because some other culture had absorbed europe (say, the mongols - it's just an example). Would the world be culturally poorer? Assuming the same population/art expenditure, not really, because new things will always be produced. The world would be just as culturally rich, but different. The cultures we have today? Arbitrary. So why should value be placed in keeping them as they are? Sure, being part of a culture is a huge part of being a person, expressing yourself and so on. But there's no 'correct' culture, for any one person. Let people do what they want with culture, it's just a thing.

quote:

ppropriation doesn't lead to a diversity of thought, it impedes it. When the majority culture appropriates a thing it just reshapes it to fit into the already-existing molds that everything in the culture already fits into. Cultural appropriation of Buddhist meditation doesn't lead to a new take on it.

quote:

There is nobody saying that cultural appropriation may be somewhat positive and somewhat negative, only people saying it's purely good.

Arglebargle III posted:

You heard it first here guys. Drinking water is sometimes problematic.

CarrKnight posted:

I think most people who disagree on this thread seems to be having a relatively value-free approach to cultural appropriation.
Cultural appropriation is a mechanism, no different from gravity, of how different cultures interact and share artifacts. It is "good" only in the sense that more cultural appropriation means more sharing and more diversity (the shallow, superficial kind expressed above). It is "bad" only in as much as it is affected pre-existing and exogenous economic and political inequalities.
The view from here is that rudatron thinks that you can only stop cultural appropriation by dividing and segregating cultures (a terrible thing) while you think the "quality" of cultural appropriation can be improved. But I am not convinced you made that point convincing.

Arglebargle III posted:

You heard it first here guys. Drinking water is sometimes problematic.

Effectronica posted:

I am defining cultural appropriation differently from you, and using it specifically to refer to a certain set of interactions, rather than all interactions that involve incorporating something from another culture.

CarrKnight posted:

But that's exactly my point. To you there is a subset of lower-quality interactions that need to be removed. But the burden of proof you have is that you need to show this subset of interactions:
1- Are actually bad
2- Can be halted without affecting every other kind of interactions
3- Can be halted given that real inequalities exist and will not change for a long time.

quote:

Actually, the second requires proof of a negative the way you've phrased it, and the third requires justification from you, but maybe you could actually respond to what was concretely said and explain what it is you don't find convincing? I can rewrite it, quote it, whatever.

Omi-Polari posted:

I just don't see much actual evidence that black artists are being passed over for white ones in 21st century America. I mean, if you look at the Billboard Hot 100 it's hardly whitewashed. It also tends to vary, there are sometimes more white artists on the Top 10, a lot of times actually fewer. Sometimes no white males, etc. Sometimes no whites at all. So if you're going to posit a zero-sum relationship then you need to demonstrate it.

Largely the evidence for your argument is anecdotal and involves individuals, but the trend is quite the opposite:

http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-white-people-are-no-longer-relevant-in-pop-music-in-terms-of-sales-2012-3?op=1

Omi-Polari posted:

Well, I'd stick up for Madonna, too. I think she vogued because she had deep admiration for her gay fans, who reciprocated that. And I think her approach to female sexuality is akin to how a lot of gay men (I count myself here) see their own experiences. In any case, a lot of gay artists have done very well remixing her music.

Omi-Polari posted:

Well, I see it as kind of a manufactured controversy. I remember one of big social media blow-ups of the day a few weeks ago was Beyonce being passed over for Beck at the Grammys. Okay, I don't know what kind of struggles Beyonce has had to deal with in her life. But she had the #2 best-selling album or something like that last year. Beyonce will be fine. Basically the left is spending a lot of time organizing around defending multi-millionaire celebrities in a struggle against other multi-millionaires and then wonders why no one wants to join them.