|
VitalSigns, I get where your coming from. No one should be able to mock another culture free of judgment. It's fine to reject that, dancing around in a caricature on Halloween is insulting (As are the 'Redskins' team). But take that Lakota Declaration. Is 'shamanism' doing that? No, it's taking something else and spinning it. It's really easy to make fun of (I mean, Really loving Easy), but it's no more or less valid than any other culture formation you'll find historically. They're just more modern version of Greco-Roman 'Mystery Cults' (There are literal roman statues of the Egyptian God Isis for example). Now they cannot say that it's something it's not, they have to take ownership of it, they've got to spin it. They can't find-replace some set of words with another set either, no one's falling for that. But I think that what many people have called appropriation is absolutely essential to help inspire more creativity, push more perspectives, more more more. The big example here is art, but I do think society as a whole is improved by this kind of process, and in particular when it comes to things like cultural values. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Apr 18, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Sure sure I get what you're saying too, cultural exchange has created great art and humanity benefits from that, and as a practical matter if something is a good idea, people are going to see it and emulate it and bring it back home. Mimicry is basic human nature, hell basic primate nature, apes learn by watching too. My very first posts in this thread were me asking questions about what forms of exchange are and aren't appropriation. If you feel that the Lakota religion fills a spiritual need of yours and you find a shaman willing to teach you, and you say prayers and chants in the woods out by your house, I don't think the Lakota Intelligence Service is going to track your movements and jump out of the forest and call you a shitlord. Or if something in there inspires you artistically and you incorporate those influences into your art because you like to create then okay sure. But if you dress up and do their sacred chants on the street corner to take pictures with tourists or make a bunch of cheap knock-offs of their art to sell in gas stations, then yeah you should probably prepare yourself emotionally to have them say the way you're making a buck off their religion is lovely and crass. Remember, the person you're arguing about cultural imperialism of deep dish pizza with is the same guy who celebrated America's overthrow of Saddam and called everyone Baath apologists when that was a convenient way to be annoying. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But why exactly does it make them a douchebag? What do we say when they ask us what they've done wrong. Maybe we could come up with a name for this concept to describe turning something sacred and meaningful to a people and turning it, and by extension them, into a joke and a party game. What do you think, what could we call this? I'm not sure what we should call it, but I think calling it cultural appropriation leads to a lot of misconceptions over what the problem actually is. I think wearing a headdress is of a similar sort of act as creating images of the prophen Mohamed or, as referenced earlier in the thread, Piss Christ. In these three cases, something along the lines of 'religious transgression' might work. I think those examples are qualitatively different from Black Face or the Redskins. In those cases, promotion of stereotypes and racial caricatures covers the issue fairly well and is a better framework to talk about those problems, particularly, if ones aim is to change minds and effect change in the world. blackguy32 posted:First of all, get your arguments right. I never brought up PF Changs are whatever stupid tangent you are on about with Westernized Chinese food. 2nd of all, I never brought up any non-American weighing in on American race relations. What I did bring up is that Iggy Azalea came over here, appropriated a culture and then proceeded to poo poo all over the very people she was attempting to emulate. Third, you make it seem like it is the worst thing in the world to be called a dick. I never meant to imply that you claimed the PF Changs issue was valid, I brought it up to indicate that no definition of CA has yet been offered that can't be applied to specious bullshit like this. It's true that many people against the idea of CA use these arguments, but it's also true that those same arguments are used by those seeking something to be outraged about, like the Avril Lavigne example. My argument is not that anyone's rights are being violated when CA is invoked. My argument is that while CA may be a useful concept to discuss culture exchanges in certain contexts (namely academic ones) it's not really useful beyond that limited scope and can be easily misapplied by many regardless of where they stand on racial issues. For any allegation of CA, one must listen and decide whether that claim is valid. I think the views of minorities are often talked over and ignored, and one ought to be aware of the tendency for that to happen when considering the issue. However, I don't think that means that one must accept all such claims. Most will probably be right, but some will be specious. It's better to take issue with offense towards sacred symbols directly, like one might do with Piss Christ, or with racial charictures like one might with the Redskins, rather than cite CA as the offense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
So you agree that the phenomenon exists, your problem is with the name because it can be misunderstood (or, really, is prone to deliberate obfuscation by people wishing to derail the discussion), so you would like to call it something different to make it more accessible outside of academic circles, is that it? I don't have any objection to picking better names for things personally, although I do wonder what exactly this argument is supposed to accomplish in this thread. It's not as if sociologists are reading SA.com to resolve terminology disputes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you agree that the phenomenon exists, your problem is with the name because it can be misunderstood (or, really, is prone to deliberate obfuscation by people wishing to derail the discussion), so you would like to call it something different to make it more accessible outside of academic circles, is that it? Yes, as a sociological phenomenon cultural appropriation exists. I don't like using the term outside of those contexts because it always turns into a disaster. Of course sociologists aren't reading the thread to resolve terminology disputes, but I feel that CA is one of many examples where academic language is, for lack of a better term, appropriated and misapplied. This is sort of an ironic parallel to CA itself where the argument loses its value as its meaning is blurred to fit rhetorical purposes outside of its original context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But are the new-age-shamanists doing that, dictating to others? If you want to fight that, I will be there helping. The contention is that, because of inequality, the minority may find it easier to just adopt that outside meaning, and that's the harm. But isn't that just demanding that no exchange take place if there's some kind of power inequality? That segregation is justified without perfect equality? Why? That preserves the cultures we have, in stone, for all time, but is that a good thing? Yes, they are. That's the point! I wouldn't expect you to be anywhere helping, though, since you are the same guy that considers any spirituality from Africa "primitive witchcraft" and advocated for their suppression, though. quote:ut take that Lakota Declaration. Is 'shamanism' doing that? No, it's taking something else and spinning it. It's really easy to make fun of (I mean, Really loving Easy), but it's no more or less valid than any other culture formation you'll find historically. They're just more modern version of Greco-Roman 'Mystery Cults' (There are literal roman statues of the Egyptian God Isis for example). Everyone is falling for that. The people doing crystal-healing "Sufism" are not taking ownership and spinning it in their own direction, they are find-replacing some set of words with another because the fact that people do fall for that gives them cultural power. They exploit the fact that Sufism is considered more "authentic" than the western new age practices in order to sell them by claiming it's sufism when it is actually just the same thing as every crystal healing place: You just put the name "Sufism" on it to make people think it's a Mystical Tradition From The East. There's no tawhid in it: This isn't Michael Muhammad Knight trying to make punk rock Islam, or Submitters looking for patterns of the number nineteen, these are just guys who can pass more product if they put on the trappings of someone elses identity and don't change the substance. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Respecting someone's traditions isn't a political opinion anymore than saying "please" and "thank you" is a political opinion. No no, it's a slippery slope. First you ask me to take others into consideration, next thing you know there's a constitutional amendment mandating that all citizens wear beige Tyvek coveralls. Soon after, white Treblinka.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sorry I thought you were complaining that some Lakota people would rather you not adopt their rituals as a self-aggrandizing showpiece and treat their religion as some silly game. No, my goalposts are the same. I give zero shits about "tradition" in itself. Something being perceived as traditional means nothing to me. As I've said, it's a bullshit category that we should do well to erase from our language. I respect people though, and if somebody claims I'm trampling their traditions, I'll listen and consider it. Not because traditions deserve that, but because "it's our tradition!" argument is usually used to prop up some other and more relevant grievance. Sometimes that grievance is valid and sometimes they should just shove it. I realize this might not be a popular opinion, but then again I've never been a conservative. If you want to talk in the language of tradition and gain some approval go talk with those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
But pissing on native cultures to make a buck is the most conservative American thing there is! It's as American as apple pie and plump rosy-cheeked blue-eyed Jesus! You're talking about people who have lost their land, their sovereignty, been conquered and killed and humiliated. And then they say "hey could you leave us this one thing? Just let us have our religion and our art to ourselves. Don't turn it into another way for the white man to make a buck off us. We can't make you, there's literally nothing we can do to stop you, you've already taken everything else you wanted, just respect this one thing, okay?" And then they're called racists and segregationists and Jim Crow lovers by self-professed liberals, like they're the KKK burning crosses on your lawn or something. It's astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Pissing on native cultures to make a buck is far from only an American thing, the Europeans have been doing it for literally millenia
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
I didn't say it was exclusive, just that it was a proud bulwark of conservative America. But idk some of the people itt must be absolutely insufferable in everyday life if their reaction to a simple thing being asked of them politely is sputtering about the constitution.  "Hey would you mind getting out of the shot, we're taking wedding pictures in this park" "What! I have freedom of expression and association, it's in the constitution! How dare you demand I not photobomb anywhere I want, it's a free country, this is discrimination! I will not yield. Molon labe!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't say it was exclusive, just that it was a proud bulwark of conservative America. The past two pages, the only people who have brought up the idea of rights are you, Sedan Chair, and blackguy32. I get that this is an argument dumb people frequently make on the internet, but no one is making it here. You're right that not abusing somebody's sacred symbols is a small and easy request to fulfill, but nobody's sputtering about constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jesus dude get a new gimmick, you've made the same lovely joke like a dozen times. Don't sign your posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Let us English posted:The past two pages, the only people who have brought up the idea of rights are you, Sedan Chair, and blackguy32. I get that this is an argument dumb people frequently make on the internet, but no one is making it here. You're right that not abusing somebody's sacred symbols is a small and easy request to fulfill, but nobody's sputtering about constitution. But there's a lot of similar language meant to call that up. Like talking about "banning" people from doing things, or this and that "not allowed" for white people, or "can I do this" to evoke imagery of jackboots and nightsticks. Stuff no one ever says about other social expectations of politeness and respect. You never hear people complain "oh what I'm forced to say 'thank you' if you bring me something? Am I allowed to skip it if I'm in a hurry?" or "Is banning people from flipping the middle finger really going to help anything, why don't you just ignore someone who flips you the bird?" "Why are you dictating that I RSVP before May 3rd?" You notice that? Why is that, what's so different here that suddenly we have to talk about bans and permissions and dictating?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But pissing on native cultures to make a buck is the most conservative American thing there is! It's as American as apple pie and plump rosy-cheeked blue-eyed Jesus! Who speaks for a culture or people, though? Some people getting offended over CA are literally Effectronica. Some people are Really Mad but for their own reasons (insecurity about their own cultural identity, etc). Some people thing things labeled CA are great. Most people don't care. Which of those is the voice we're supposed to listen to? Which is the one that owns the culture that has supposedly been appropriated and can speak for it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But there's a lot of similar language meant to call that up. Like talking about "banning" people from doing things, or this and that "not allowed" for white people, or "can I do this" to evoke imagery of jackboots and nightsticks. Stuff no one ever says about other social expectations of politeness and respect. I always took those to be figurative ways of describing the social pressure applied when things are deemed socially unacceptable.  If find that there's a similar language surrounding the idea of tipping, but no one who complains about being 'forced' to tip is worrying about stormtroopers knocking their door down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
quote:Simply using something outside of it's cultural context or without permission can be considered as appropriation
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Who speaks for a culture or people, though? Some people getting offended over CA are literally Effectronica. Some people are Really Mad but for their own reasons (insecurity about their own cultural identity, etc). Some people thing things labeled CA are great. Most people don't care. Which of those is the voice we're supposed to listen to? Which is the one that owns the culture that has supposedly been appropriated and can speak for it? I don't know, I guess you'll just have to determine that on a case-by-case basis. It's like asking who speaks for all women. Some women don't mind you opening a door for them, some appreciate it. But trawling tumblr until you find a manhating feminazi who calls you Hitler for doing it, well that kind of just sounds like you're trying to find the most ridiculous position possible in order to strawman everyone and ignore the issue, you know? If you're worried about people who are literally Effectronica...well Effectronica will pretend to be an insane Catholic theocrat taking on the White Man's Burden to civilize darkest Iraq in one thread, and the tumblrist SJW battling the forces of chicken parmigiana in another, whatever lets him/her be most annoying, so idk stop falling for it I guess? If you feel a spiritual need that the Lakota religion fills in your life then sure, find a shaman willing to teach you the ways and go pray in the woods. I promise you the Lakota elders are not going to pop out of the bushes yelling "cease your appropriation, shitlord!" If you're making knock-offs of their religious art to sell at a gas station though, you're probably not being respectful so you shouldn't be surprised that they don't love you for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know, I guess you'll just have to determine that on a case-by-case basis. Yes, but even the most disrespectful riffing on someone else's culture doesn't deprive anyone of the ability to avail themselves of their own culture. I mean, I can talk complete bollocks using polysyllables and quote paragraphs of the most impenetrable text of Judith Butler, but that won't mean that Effluent can't do the same in a text-brick that culminates with a death threat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
It's just a weird question. Who speaks for Spanish culture and decrees you have to say "tú" to friends and "usted" to elders? When someone tells you that, do you start whinging about the PC language police who won't let you use the familiar with your bosses or teachers? Do you ask "well it doesn't keep them from enjoying their day so it's stupid and I should be able to say whatever I want without disapproval from anyone"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Yes, but even the most disrespectful riffing on someone else's culture doesn't deprive anyone of the ability to avail themselves of their own culture. I mean, I can talk complete bollocks using polysyllables and quote paragraphs of the most impenetrable text of Judith Butler, but that won't mean that Effluent can't do the same in a text-brick that culminates with a death threat. Okay, so? Calling someone a friend of the family doesn't deprive them of their ability to do...anything I guess...so is that okay or is there some basic level of respect we owe to each other as fellow human beings? This is a really reductive statement that ignores a lot of the realities that minorities face. E: Zachack posted:You yourself basically stated that someone should feel ashamed for wearing a sari at a social event. Is that not dictating behavior? Idk, what is dictating behavior to you. Is it dictating behavior if I tell you people will be offended if you don't say "thank you" when they give you a birthday present? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, so? Minorities. What a bunch of kumqwattery. You know what? I'm a minority right now*, so I expect that you and other theoryheads to prescribe what's best for me and tell me What It's Like. Tell me how to be Authentic, because I might not know. *Disagree with me, and you're racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Come on, you're better than that. Ya gotta give me something besides "do minorities even exist: I went to Jamaica and all the hotel staff was black so I must have been the lone oppressed white man". But it's like 4 in the morning here yall, I've got to get to sleep, don't be mad if I'm quiet for a good 10 hours, k? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you ask "well it doesn't keep them from enjoying their day so it's stupid and I should be able to say whatever I want without disapproval from anyone"? Yes they do, absolutely, every time, without exception. Infants wearing pants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Ice Ice Baby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's like asking who speaks for all women. Some women don't mind you opening a door for them, some appreciate it. But trawling tumblr until you find a manhating feminazi who calls you Hitler for doing it, well that kind of just sounds like you're trying to find the most ridiculous position possible in order to strawman everyone and ignore the issue, you know? If you're worried about people who are literally Effectronica...well Effectronica will pretend to be an insane Catholic theocrat taking on the White Man's Burden to civilize darkest Iraq in one thread, and the tumblrist SJW battling the forces of chicken parmigiana in another, whatever lets him/her be most annoying, so idk stop falling for it I guess? Where does effectronica post like a theocrat? I've only ever seen him post with the same gimmick he is using here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But there's a lot of similar language meant to call that up. Like talking about "banning" people from doing things, or this and that "not allowed" for white people, or "can I do this" to evoke imagery of jackboots and nightsticks. Stuff no one ever says about other social expectations of politeness and respect. No one but you, Effectronica and SedanChair even touched the topic of jackboots and nightsticks. When most people asked if they are allowed to do something, they mean not being yelled at by a random person on the basis of some obscure and arbitrary criteria. I have seen in this thread people claiming that the minorities are "forced" to abandon their culture because of cultural appropriation, did they also mean frat death squads burning taking away their war bonnets and forbidding them to use kanji? It's almost like you tried to set up a lovely strawman to portray your opponents as paranoid freeps. I mean, what the gently caress is even this? VitalSigns posted:But pissing on native cultures to make a buck is the most conservative American thing there is! It's as American as apple pie and plump rosy-cheeked blue-eyed Jesus! No one called them segregationists or Jim Crow lovers, it was something you made up. I'm really astonished you feel slighted by a choice of words which you decided to interpret in the most unfavorable meaning possible, but still feel it's OK to go full batshit like this. It's not that anyone expect Aushwitz for whites managed by you, SedanChair and Effectronica, but it doesn't prevent you from regularly claiming this. VitalSigns posted:I don't know, I guess you'll just have to determine that on a case-by-case basis. Most people in this thread object against your definition of cultural appropriation, because it's based on a lovely criterion and frequently misused by the likes of Effectronica to yell at other people and wish them painful death for eating sushi without learning Japanese beforehand. I mean, no one had to trawl Tumblr to find Effectronica and SedanChair, they invited themselves to the thread. It would probably have helped if more "moderate" posters agreed for some clearer definition of cultural appropriation, instead of resisting it with might and main. The only reason they were allowed to call people minority-hating racists for wearing kimonos was that other people defended their God-given right to claim CA whenever they feel slighted. You don't get to disown them after Effectronica went fully bonkers after enabling them in the span of this entire thread. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
I've never done that, this isn't helldump and no, they're not. Has Easter and Christmas been appropriated from their true meanings? It's been argued that they have, it's also been argued, by video, that certain hairstyles 'types' are verboten for the majority. I can't see that kind of talk as anything but ridiculous. I do think this kind of talk of appropriation really does hamper new and interesting creations. But of course, mockery isn't acceptable, and I've always maintained that, and neither is lying.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I've never done that, this isn't helldump and no, they're not. Has Easter and Christmas been appropriated from their true meanings? It's been argued that they have, it's also been argued, by video, that certain hairstyles 'types' are verboten for the majority. I can't see that kind of talk as anything but ridiculous. I do think this kind of talk of appropriation really does hamper new and interesting creations. But of course, mockery isn't acceptable, and I've always maintained that, and neither is lying. It's pretty undeniable that Xmas and Easter have been appropriated by business interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Not Easter really, but Christmas definitely has been.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:No one but you, Effectronica and SedanChair even touched the topic of jackboots and nightsticks. When most people asked if they are allowed to do something, they mean not being yelled at by a random person on the basis of some obscure and arbitrary criteria. Who is getting yelled at by random people on the street? Does this happen? I think you're making this up, it sounds like those manhating feminazis that go on the attack if a well-meaning gentleman demurely opens a door for them. Gantolandon posted:I have seen in this thread people claiming that the minorities are "forced" to abandon their culture because of cultural appropriation, did they also mean frat death squads burning taking away their war bonnets and forbidding them to use kanji? Ah, but the way minorities are "forced" to abandon their culture is real. Minorities have their dress and speech and behavior policed in all ways, with definite material consequences, from career and professional consequences to threat of physical violence. They learn early on what these largely unspoken rules are, what to do, how to act, to avoid bringing down reprisals. But then they tell a white person "hey, could you not treat our clothes like a silly costume or your trendy photo-op, we can't stop you, but it would be nice if you would respect that" and there's zero consequences besides the disappointment of a powerless person you don't give a poo poo about anyway, and oh now it's time to take a stand. For freedom. How about we fight the stifling atmosphere of assimilation and the unspoken rules that minorities must follow to be accepted and taken seriously? As a side benefit, once saris become an unremarkable everyday garment that no one takes notice of any more than notice they slacks vs chinos, then no one will care if you wear one, either! That's the wonder of real cultural exchange, both sides benefit! Gantolandon posted:No one called them segregationists or Jim Crow lovers, it was something you made up rudatron posted:But are the new-age-shamanists doing that, dictating to others? If you want to fight that, I will be there helping. The contention is that, because of inequality, the minority may find it easier to just adopt that outside meaning, and that's the harm. But isn't that just demanding that no exchange take place if there's some kind of power inequality? That segregation is justified without perfect equality? Why? That preserves the cultures we have, in stone, for all time, but is that a good thing? Gantolandon posted:Most people in this thread object against your definition of cultural appropriation, because it's based on a lovely criterion and frequently misused by the likes of Effectronica to yell at other people and wish them painful death for eating sushi without learning Japanese beforehand. Effectronica is a joke poster who thinks the invasion of Iraq was just dandy when that's annoying, and that eating sushi is imperialism when that's annoying. Stop falling for a gimmick, might as well debate a chatbot or a dude in a Guy Fawkes mask. If your only disagreement is the terminology, what term would you suggest? Gantolandon posted:I mean, no one had to trawl Tumblr to find Effectronica and SedanChair, they invited themselves to the thread. It would probably have helped if more "moderate" posters agreed for some clearer definition of cultural appropriation, instead of resisting it with might and main. The only reason they were allowed to call people minority-hating racists for wearing kimonos was that other people defended their God-given right to claim CA whenever they feel slighted. You don't get to disown them after Effectronica went fully bonkers after enabling them in the span of this entire thread. Why do you believe discussion should be controlled by the most spittle-flecked shrill people? Do you apply this in other contexts? Does every feminist have to apologize to you for the existence of TERFs? There's a reason I abandoned this thread when it was the all-Eff "kill-you're-parents" show, because the discussion was boring and it was mostly trolling and lazy insults (except rudatron who patiently engaged for god-knows-why) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Where does effectronica post like a theocrat? I've only ever seen him post with the same gimmick he is using here. Fired up search just for you, my dear Effectronica posted:How are democratic and open governmental systems to be established without removing the authoritarian and closed systems that currently exist? What is the means by which the USA, or I guess if you're particularly intelligent for a vulgar leftist, the Global North, is incapable of fostering said governments? Effectronica posted:I'm glad that so many supposed leftists and liberals think that Vladimir Putin's government should remain in power, and that the house of Saud should forever rule over the people of Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy, and that the coup in Thailand will only do good as it eliminates western nonsense like the freedom of speech and elections. Just kinda scroll around if you have archives, it's all hilarious. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
I didn't call anyone segregationist or jim crow lovers vital signs, I took your logic and I turned it on itself, took it to its conclusion. I don't believe that you think segregation is good or whatever, in fact that's the point, I'm showing what that same kind of logic would justify, to convince you away from it. You don't want segregation, and that's what I'm trying to appeal to. So you can drop that disingenuous outrage schtick.steinrokkan posted:It's pretty undeniable that Xmas and Easter have been appropriated by business interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
But that same logic wouldn't justify it, because segregation in America is something historically imposed by force and retains those connotations, and "hey would you mind not selling knock-offs of our sacred objects in gas stations" is an absolutely powerless request that you're in no way bound to follow except by your own sense of respect for your fellow man. There's a reason "slippery slope" is a fallacy. You've got to draw a logical path from white people not sticking plastic feathers in their hair to color-wheel skin tone tests for who is allowed to eat sushi. I feel like that's why it's brought up. Because whenever I say "it's just politeness, be polite", people go "oh yeah well I don't want to disrespect or insult anyone" but there's still this tendency to frame it as minorities dictating what you can do and segregating whites away from them. Why not just abandon that framing, if you've found it muddies the issue and generates fake outrage? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fired up search just for you, my dear It reads like bog standard liberalism. I'd like to know where he picked up the phrase "vulgar left", though. E: He's not trolling. Just a stupid self-assured liberal. Miltank fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Who is getting yelled at by random people on the street? Does this happen? I think you're making this up, it sounds like those manhating feminazis that go on the attack if a well-meaning gentleman demurely opens a door for them. Are you being deliberating obtuse? Everyone who has said that has very clearly been asking whether something was "allowed" as in "without running afoul of this definition of CA"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
I think the framing is important though; it's a stark departure from other discussions of social conventions regarding politeness and respect. "Am I allowed to X" needlessly muddies the issue with implications that the crafty Indian is physically preventing you or threatening you in some way. And the framing works. Every time I frame other social conventions with "is it dictating behavior if you're expected to say please and thank you", the question is ignored but the canard that minorities are dictating behavior with CA talk remains. You could ask the question: "do you think my special stuffed manicotti recipe qualifies as appropriation, VitalSigns" and I could say "No, what you choose to eat doesn't hurt anyone and the burden it would place on you to put your cooking into various oppression categories is not worth any conceivable benefit." And then you could say "well how is what the Lakota want different", and I could say "well, not dressing up as them is an insignificant imposition on your life, but doing it anyway contributes in some small way to the otherization that they face every day from our society, so there's really no reason for you not to respect their wishes beyond obstinance, why not just be polite". That's how the conversation could go, if you want. I don't understand the advantage of obfuscating the issue. I feel like I'm saying "Hey, if someone gives you a birthday gift, you should thank them and expect them to be offended if you don't" and cue "oh well am I allowed to refuse if <insert ever-growing list of increasingly irrelevant edge cases> I guess not, this whole 'thanking' situation is so complicated, it sounds like an excuse for random people to yell at me on the basis of obscure and arbitrary criteria". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
as an internet im incredibly worried about people yelling at me on noted irrelevant website for children twitumblrbooktube
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think the framing is important though; it's a stark departure from other discussions of social conventions regarding politeness and respect. "Am I allowed to X" needlessly muddies the issue with implications that the crafty Indian is physically preventing you or threatening you in some way. And the framing works. Every time I frame other social conventions with "is it dictating behavior if you're expected to say please and thank you", the question is ignored but the canard that minorities are dictating behavior with CA talk remains. If someone asked "am I allowed to refuse" it would be very clear what they meant and the answer and the answer would be "no that's rude", that is a perfectly common way people talk and I'm frankly flabbergasted that you think that's some sort of weird obfuscation. Its especially bizarre to accuse people of obfuscation when your manner of objecting to people's supposed framing is to pretend you don't understand what they are saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Okay fine. I think you're ignoring some deliberate framing for emotional appeal like people throwing around "you're dictating behavior" in a way that's not commonly done with other issues of politeness, but if you don't see it that way then all right. "The Lakota have released this statement asking you not to rip off their religion to make a buck" "Am I allowed to do it anyway?" "No, that's hurtful." "Am I allowed to eat deep dish pizza?" "Yes, that's not hurtful" We good, or do you have more questions VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 10:07
|
|