Is that racist?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is that racist?

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kaczynski was a misanthropic narcissist who saw nature as inherently good, if society does the exact opposite of what he suggest then it's doing the right thing.

Who What Now posted:

Sorry that you're too dumb to realize that tortured puberty metaphors, botched biblical allegories, and running out of money 2/3rds through don't make for a good series.

Actually it's a beautiful, sensitive story about the ways people hurt each without meaning to & the value of relationships. And I'll wreck you until you agree.

Ytlaya posted:

It's the exact same litmus test that applies to things like racial slurs. If an action makes a non-insignificant number of people upset, you should stop doing that action. If you don't, you're an rear end in a top hat. No one is saying the government should step in and prevent cultural appropriation; just that if you do it and it upsets people from the culture in question, you're a bad person.

But it's also important to try and figure out why people are upset, right, and I think the proximate complaint (bad food/hair/whatever) isn't the cause, it's the context. If black people weren't systematically disadvantaged in employment, could trust the police force and all that, would anyone but the most obnoxious still give a poo poo about twerking? I don't think so, and there's no better examples than the counterexamples posted about white poo poo - no one thinks NGE or whatever or insulting or some kind of culture-crime, because it doesn't matter. Bad food also does not matter, but it serves as an external concern that can be projected onto, it acts as a symbolic representation of actual material circumstances. Those materialist concerns are the things that actually matter. But if you don't recognize it as that, as a stand-in for what actually matters, you end up going down a dumb, never-ending rabbit hole.

You want a great comparison here, look no further than the poo poo about abortion. Do you honestly think it's the issue of whether or not a bundle of cells constitutes a human being is what invokes violent reaction? gently caress no, it's an expression of desperation on the part of a regressive community that knows it's losing clout/respect/power.

I'm a big believer in self-awareness and mindfulness, that's what I try to promote. When people aren't honest about their feelings, that causes problems, and that's what I see whenever CA gets brought up.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 07:49

Dead Cosmonaut: Nov 14, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

rudatron posted:

Kaczynski was a misanthropic narcissist who saw nature as inherently good, if society does the exact opposite of what he suggest then it's doing the right thing.

He actually did target people who were involved in coverup behind Exxon-Valdez, though.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:31

Let us English: Feb 21, 2004; Actual photo of Let Us English, probably seen here waking his wife up in the morning talking about chemical formulae when all she wants is a hot cup of shhhhh

Ytlaya posted:

I think there's no need to over-analyze an issue like cultural appropriation. If something makes a significant portion of a population upset, then it is bad. This is the main reason why examples of other ethnic groups appropriating various aspects of American culture isn't a problem; virtually no Americans are bothered by it. But if a significant number of, say, black musicians are upset about their music being appropriated by white rock musicians in the 50s, then it is a bad thing. Cultural appropriation is also a problem if it can be shown that people of the dominant ethnicity are somehow benefiting at the expense of a minority ethnic group.

It's the exact same litmus test that applies to things like racial slurs. If an action makes a non-insignificant number of people upset, you should stop doing that action. If you don't, you're an rear end in a top hat. No one is saying the government should step in and prevent cultural appropriation; just that if you do it and it upsets people from the culture in question, you're a bad person.

But is the framework of cultural appropriation needed in that case. If we can easily sort things into "good" and "bad" without it, why would we want to include an extra layer of obfuscating jargon over our judgments. I've yet to see any definition of cultural appropriation that would include the theft of black music but exclude undercooked sushi rice. Headdresses, sports team names, music, commercialization of holy symbols can all be challenged with invoking cultural appropriation, so what useful purpose does it serve?

This is the exact question that every conversation about cultural appropriation boils down to on these forums and it's never answered directly.

rudatron posted:

Actually it's a beautiful, sensitive story about the ways people hurt each without meaning to & the value of relationships. And I'll wreck you until you agree.

Eva is pretty rad. Especially the 2nd remake movie which served as a indictment of otaku culture on Evangelion fans themselves.

Let us English fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Dec 22, 2015

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:39

Luxury Communism: Aug 22, 2015; by Lowtax

rudatron posted:

Kaczynski was a misanthropic narcissist who saw nature as inherently good, if society does the exact opposite of what he suggest then it's doing the right thing.

The opposite here is extinguishing the quintessential African-American worldview and leaving them with the mere superficial trappings of blackness such as dashiki and rap music, right? v :shobon:

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:43

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Ytlaya posted:

I think there's no need to over-analyze an issue like cultural appropriation. If something makes a significant portion of a population upset, then it is bad. This is the main reason why examples of other ethnic groups appropriating various aspects of American culture isn't a problem; virtually no Americans are bothered by it. But if a significant number of, say, black musicians are upset about their music being appropriated by white rock musicians in the 50s, then it is a bad thing. Cultural appropriation is also a problem if it can be shown that people of the dominant ethnicity are somehow benefiting at the expense of a minority ethnic group.

It's the exact same litmus test that applies to things like racial slurs. If an action makes a non-insignificant number of people upset, you should stop doing that action. If you don't, you're an rear end in a top hat. No one is saying the government should step in and prevent cultural appropriation; just that if you do it and it upsets people from the culture in question, you're a bad person.

A good way to look at it, IMO.

Though to take it further (and elaborate a bit from my earlier ramblings) I think it does someone a disservice to indulge in their pity party. Particularly college students. If we go about pretending that "my sushi was improperly prepared" is worth getting worked up over, it ill equips a young adult for the real world. Because again, the world doesn't care about you. Instilling a false sense of karmic justice will only make that person's life harder when reality mushroom-stamps them in the face.

Tldr: Buckle up Buttercup, it's gonna be a hard life.

Expect nothing, give as much kindness as you can bear.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:49

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Luxury Communism posted:

The opposite here is extinguishing the quintessential African-American worldview and leaving them with the mere superficial trappings of blackness such as dashiki and rap music, right? vv

The magic trick here is that there is no quintessential African-American worldview, everyone's perspective is a product of arbitrary circumstance.

ie- You could use the exact same logic that Kaczynski uses to declare that, since the AA worldview was crated based on slavery, freeing them from slavery also robbed them of that worldview. It's preposterous. His criticism is founded on essentializing the current social relations as somehow intrinsic, then declaring that any change must therefore be 'against nature'. There is no such thing as a deeper meaning, there is no 'deeper you' which is protected from the impurity of the real world, everything exists only on the superficial level.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:54

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Talmonis posted:

A good way to look at it, IMO.

Though to take it further (and elaborate a bit from my earlier ramblings) I think it does someone a disservice to indulge in their pity party. Particularly college students. If we go about pretending that "my sushi was improperly prepared" is worth getting worked up over, it ill equips a young adult for the real world. Because again, the world doesn't care about you. Instilling a false sense of karmic justice will only make that person's life harder when reality mushroom-stamps them in the face.

Tldr: Buckle up Buttercup, it's gonna be a hard life.

Expect nothing, give as much kindness as you can bear.

The tiredness of your preteen misanthrope act aside, what exactly is kind about characterizing people as whiny babies for caring about something you think they shouldn't?

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:57

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Let us English posted:

But is the framework of cultural appropriation needed in that case. If we can easily sort things into "good" and "bad" without it, why would we want to include an extra layer of obfuscating jargon over our judgments. I've yet to see any definition of cultural appropriation that would include the theft of black music but exclude undercooked sushi rice. Headdresses, sports team names, music, commercialization of holy symbols can all be challenged with invoking cultural appropriation, so what useful purpose does it serve?

Whatever word you chose to use would have the same problem. People don't get upset because the term is pretty broad, people get upset because it implies they might not be perfect. It's the same thing with racism. Racism covers a huge range of behaviors, but if you imply someone might have acted a little racist by constantly eyeing the only brown person in the store they'll blow up at you. I'm a good person because I don't shout slurs at random passersby.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 05:57

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

7c Nickel posted:

Whatever word you chose to use would have the same problem. People don't get upset because the term is pretty broad, people get upset because it implies they might not be perfect. It's the same thing with racism. Racism covers a huge range of behaviors, but if you imply someone might have acted a little racist by constantly eyeing the only brown person in the store they'll blow up at you. I'm a good person because I don't shout slurs at random passersby.

Exactly, just look at all the shrieking and wailing over the term "problematic" for a perfect example of that. People only started saying that because it's a softer blow than more accurate words like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobic," but goony types were still dimly able to perceive that they were being criticized so it is a Bad Word that only Wrong Thinkers say.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:00

Luxury Communism: Aug 22, 2015; by Lowtax

rudatron posted:

The magic trick here is that there is no quintessential African-American worldview, everyone's perspective is a product of arbitrary circumstance.

ie- You could use the exact same logic that Kaczynski uses to declare that, since the AA worldview was crated based on slavery, freeing them from slavery also robbed them of that worldview. It's preposterous. His criticism is founded on essentializing the current social relations as somehow intrinsic, then declaring that any change must therefore be 'against nature'. There is no such thing as a deeper meaning, there is no 'deeper you' which is protected from the impurity of the real world, everything exists only on the superficial level.

Then culture itself is loving lame and who cares about it? :confused:

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:00

Let us English: Feb 21, 2004; Actual photo of Let Us English, probably seen here waking his wife up in the morning talking about chemical formulae when all she wants is a hot cup of shhhhh

7c Nickel posted:

Whatever word you chose to use would have the same problem. People don't get upset because the term is pretty broad, people get upset because it implies they might not be perfect. It's the same thing with racism. Racism covers a huge range of behaviors, but if you imply someone might have acted a little racist by constantly eyeing the only brown person in the store they'll blow up at you. I'm a good person because I don't shout slurs at random passersby.

I'm sure there would be some of this, but there's got to be a term or set of terms that don't lump together poorly made food with the systematic disenfranchisement of black musicians for the greater part of the 20th century.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:03

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Let us English posted:

I'm sure there would be some of this, but there's got to be a term or set of terms that don't lump together poorly made food with the systematic disenfranchisement of black musicians for the greater part of the 20th century.

If you were sincerely interested in participating in conversations about issues like this in good faith you would relinquish your need to feel in command of the conversation. It's not your issue so you don't get to pick the terminology.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:05

Let us English: Feb 21, 2004; Actual photo of Let Us English, probably seen here waking his wife up in the morning talking about chemical formulae when all she wants is a hot cup of shhhhh

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

If you were sincerely interested in participating in conversations about issues like this in good faith you would relinquish your need to feel in command of the conversation. It's not your issue so you don't get to pick the terminology.

When lacking a counter-argument always accuse the other party of speaking in bad faith. It changes the issue from whatever rhetorical failing on your part that was uncovered to the most assuredly questionable moral character of the opposite side.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:13

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Let us English posted:

I'm sure there would be some of this, but there's got to be a term or set of terms that don't lump together poorly made food with the systematic disenfranchisement of black musicians for the greater part of the 20th century.

Why? They're both manifestations of the ability of the dominant culture to exploit minority cultures without the minorities having the cultural clout to do anything about it.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:13

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Luxury Communism posted:

Then culture itself is loving lame and who cares about it?

Agreed. Exterminate all culture, bring on the NWO

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:16

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

The tiredness of your preteen misanthrope act aside, what exactly is kind about characterizing people as whiny babies for caring about something you think they shouldn't?

A solid 30+% of the U.S. population are unrepentant bigots of the worst kind. That includes people in political power, police, corporate managers, etc. If you encourage young adults to be offended by petty things, the real bad poo poo will break them. I'm not saying you should bully them for it (you really shouldn't), I'm saying you don't encourage it. Try to instill perspective, prepare them for the racist, sexist, homophobic world we live in, so that they can get up and face every day without giving up.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:20

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Talmonis posted:

A solid 30+% of the U.S. population are unrepentant bigots of the worst kind. That includes people in political power, police, corporate managers, etc. If you encourage young adults to be offended by petty things, the real bad poo poo will break them. I'm not saying you should bully them for it (you really shouldn't), I'm saying you don't encourage it. Try to instill perspective, prepare them for the racist, sexist, homophobic world we live in, so that they can get up and face every day without giving up.

This is laughable.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:23

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

If you were sincerely interested in participating in conversations about issues like this in good faith you would relinquish your need to feel in command of the conversation. It's not your issue so you don't get to pick the terminology.

That's... not actually how conversations work.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:25

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

7c Nickel posted:

Why? They're both manifestations of the ability of the dominant culture to exploit minority cultures without the minorities having the cultural clout to do anything about it.

Because complaining about the food is frivolous. Nobody is exploiting you by trying and failing miserably to make a dish you enjoy.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:29

Let us English: Feb 21, 2004; Actual photo of Let Us English, probably seen here waking his wife up in the morning talking about chemical formulae when all she wants is a hot cup of shhhhh

7c Nickel posted:

Why? They're both manifestations of the ability of the dominant culture to exploit minority cultures without the minorities having the cultural clout to do anything about it.

Because one is clear disenfranchisement and intellectual property theft and the other is about California rolls. One is getting upset over the treatment of individuals, the other is getting upset because Kung Pow Chicken in America has slightly more or less sugar than Kung Pow Chicken in China depending on the restaurant.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:30

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

7c Nickel posted:

This is laughable.

By all means, show me how indulging the hypersensitivity of privileged college students is good for their well being.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:33

Phyzzle: Jan 26, 2008

Let us English posted:

I'm sure there would be some of this, but there's got to be a term or set of terms that don't lump together poorly made food with the systematic disenfranchisement of black musicians for the greater part of the 20th century.

My suggestion was "racist" versus "Racist-racist". Maybe it'll catch on.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:35

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Let us English posted:

Because one is clear disenfranchisement and intellectual property theft and the other is about California rolls. One is getting upset over the treatment of individuals, the other is getting upset because Kung Pow Chicken in America has slightly more or less sugar than Kung Pow Chicken in China depending on the restaurant.

By using the same word you seem to be trying to imply I think that they deserve the same level of outrage or attention. This is false. I think trying to pass off crappy versions of food as authentic is pretty goddamn minor. So minor in fact that I doubt I would ever bring it up myself. Without that there doesn't actually seem to be any argument.

Talmonis posted:

By all means, show me how indulging the hypersensitivity of privileged college students is good for their well being.

The laughable part is that you seem to think minorities need lessons from you in order to know how poo poo is stacked against them.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 06:45

Let us English: Feb 21, 2004; Actual photo of Let Us English, probably seen here waking his wife up in the morning talking about chemical formulae when all she wants is a hot cup of shhhhh

Phyzzle posted:

My suggestion was "racist" versus "Racist-racist". Maybe it'll catch on.

I like this idea. When foreigners complain about the patronizing amazement towards their chopstick use from Japanese/Chinese/Koreans the word 'racist' is also dropped a lot. While such conversations are tedious and annoying, they're little more than a mild inconvenience that deserves about as much thought as lovely airline food or having to flip the pillow to the cool side before sleep. Using the same word to describe the phrase "can you use chopsticks?" with the same word one would use to describe Jim Crow always struck me as a bit much. I understand that this is why the word 'microaggression' was invented, and one prominent civil rights activist in Japan has even taken to describing them as such, but there are bigger issues to deal with regarding the rights of foreigners in countries where housing and employment discrimination are legal and openly practiced.

7c Nickel posted:

By using the same word you seem to be trying to imply I think that they deserve the same level of outrage or attention. This is false. I think trying to pass off crappy versions of food as authentic is pretty goddamn minor. So minor in fact that I doubt I would ever bring it up myself. Without that there doesn't actually seem to be any argument.

If the assumption is that all appropriation is objectionable, I think the terminology matters. And in a world where people go to great lengths to codify the difference between "legitimate cultural exchange" and "appropriation" the latter strikes me as something that is fundamentally objectionable regardless of the significance. In such a case I think it would benefit all involved if better care was taken in choosing terms. However, you're right outside of a possible change in terminology there seems to be little disagreement. Which is where the last appropriation thread ended. Two groups of posters disagreed about the specific words to use but agreed nearly 100% on what issues should be addressed and even how they should be addressed.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 07:01

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Talmonis posted:

Because complaining about the food is frivolous. Nobody is exploiting you by trying and failing miserably to make a dish you enjoy.

But complaining about the food got them a meeting with the director of dining services to fix the problem? It wasn't frivolous, they've actually effected change by making their voice heard.

You're reading too far into this. One journalism major wrote an article, probably for a class, and got like four friends to complain about the cafeteria food their meal plan forces them to buy. There's no pity party, just the typical poo poo I know my friends complained about too, and if you actually read the article most of those interviewed don't sound outraged, or worked up even, just kind of annoyed. Maybe they could have phrased their complaints differently, but that doesn't mean we ought to jump on them for being uppity or something.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 07:30

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

The tiredness of your preteen misanthrope act aside, what exactly is kind about characterizing people as whiny babies for caring about something you think they shouldn't?

Life is hard, miserable and isolating. This has nothing to do with people being told this is the case and it being taken as given, of course.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 11:53

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

rudatron posted:

Neon Genesis Evangelion?

I almost fell back in my chair when I read 'positive and negative things'. Okay, so apart from the fact that 'stupid' isn't an intellectual term, let's break it down. So a category is 'stupid' if it lumps things together that are very different. So would you say that those kinds of terms aren't useful? Because that's what other posters are saying about CA! You felt that 'no other term' is held to that standard, yet you're now declaring categories which cannot satisfy that standard as 'stupid'. Jarmak and everyone eles's entire point was that you didn't need CA to call the obvious bad cases bad/racist/negative, and that CA could (and IS) being used to group those obviously negative cases with benign or irrelevant cases - thus making CA useless/stupid.

'Racism' can also be used to group negative cases with benign or irrelevant cases.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Racism and cultural appropriation both have a part of their definition that says "negative cases only". "Stabby motions" doesn't. You can argue something doesn't belong in the category 'racism' or the category 'cultural appropriation' because it's actually not a negative thing. You can't make that argument with 'stabby motions'. Your arguments presented aren't with the term, but with uses of it. As a term, it is no different than many other categories we have that have the 'negative cases only' label on them.

This is all common sense, too.

Talmonis posted:

If you encourage young adults to be offended by petty things, the real bad poo poo will break them.

Why do you believe this? This isn't how it works at all. James Baldwin talks eloquently, but basically reminds black people that it's important for them to remember that they're not the crazy ones, that the world is exactly as you say, full of bigots and assholes and that society itself is bigoted towards them. That they deserve to feel the anger they do, that it's appropriate, and that they should temper it and forge it into strength instead of madness inside them. We're not 'teaching' them to be offended. "Offended" is a word that's entered this discourse in a weird, belittling way, it implies, with US free speech values, that the person can't hack it, or is a wimp. People are hurt, humiliated, annoyed, angered, shamed, they feel obviously left out, invisible, passed over, unimportant, reminded of their second-class status. This is going to happen whether or not we 'encourage' them to feel it. The little things, the tiny slights, wouldn't matter at all if there weren't the big things behind them. When someone crosses over to the other side of the street to avoid a black guy, that's a small thing, and you can defend it easy--it's late, maybe he does that for everyone, not just me--but it still pangs a little bit. It wouldn't bug him at all if it wasn't a reminder and a reflection of the bigger things.

So the reason you're wrong is that humans are humans, and they don't just react to what is immediately in front of them, but think about it in the context of their whole lives. Asian Americans grow up looking at media where they very clearly are seen as supporting characters, often just comic relief, almost never the lead, with most Asian american leads in US movies and TV being mixed-race. Those in successful families may have parents who've encountered the racism against Asians in the US corporate market that prevents them from rising above a certain level most of the time. Stereotypes of Asian men as sexually inadequate and perverted abound.

Where you're failing is thinking that human beings act to each incident separately, on its own merits. They don't. And just as you say that these young folks need to deal with the world as it really is, full of bigots and assholes, so you have to deal with how humans really are.

Obdicut fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Dec 22, 2015

# ? Dec 22, 2015 12:24

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Jarmak posted:

Except no, that's the entire point, cultural appropriation is attempting to tie a bunch of positive and neutral poo poo to a handful of actually bad things. Like I don't know how I could be more clear, I'm not dismissing bad bahn mi as "trivial" I'm saying it's not problematic at all. The problematic part is some privileged gently caress who complains that the underfunded under trained cafeteria staff tried to be more culturally inclusive in their lovely mass produced food.

Quit hiding behind cafeteria workers. The students took their complaints to the management; nothing in that article suggests they were going around yelling at middle aged moms trying to make ends meet with their food service jobs.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 13:35

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Obdicut posted:

'Racism' can also be used to group negative cases with benign or irrelevant cases.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Racism and cultural appropriation both have a part of their definition that says "negative cases only". "Stabby motions" doesn't. You can argue something doesn't belong in the category 'racism' or the category 'cultural appropriation' because it's actually not a negative thing. You can't make that argument with 'stabby motions'. Your arguments presented aren't with the term, but with uses of it. As a term, it is no different than many other categories we have that have the 'negative cases only' label on them.

This is all common sense, too.

No no no no no, I cannot accept. Racism is a useful category because it groups bad things together without being tautologically defined as a group containing only 'negative' things , you idiot - they all share a common property that you can judge as being bad, racism. It's not an arbitrary set. Everything labelled CA all have something in common, yet in a lot of cases there's actually no problem - not a small problem you can ignore, but zero problems. Moreover, the property they all have in common does not, on its face, actually seem to matter. Who is harmed, and is CA the cause of that harm? Does the 'purity' of any culture have intrinsic value? If everyone were to do it, how would the lives of people change? Are you find with it being done to yourself? Are the people who commit CA not worth respect? Is it assuming a fact about the world that is wrong? (<- it's fact-neutral so this one doesn't apply).

I look at that list, and the only answers I can really believe are: Not necessarily, No, Negligible change, Couldn't care less, Nope.
Because:

There are plenty of examples, some already presented, of people being just fine with it, suffering absolutely nothing - how bad you feel about it seems to directly related to how much you are already invested into the rhetoric.
Absolutely nothing is gained through stagnation, because there is no authentic experience, because authenticity is itself a mirage - you chase it but you never get it.
Internet culture basically already does the whole continuous reinterpretation thing, and it's fine, redditers/goons are no less functional than any similar dweebs you find everywhere else.
This is obviously a more personal question, but I cannot fake the outrage that is somehow required here.
Every loving artists does this, and some of the best stuff you get is as a result, so you have to say no.

Now try and do that same list with racism (utilitarianism, absolutist deontology, consequentialism, categorical imperative, virtue ethics, truth), and see how far you get.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 15:14

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

7c Nickel posted:

The laughable part is that you seem to think minorities need lessons from you in order to know how poo poo is stacked against them.

Zounds! My cunning plot to whitesplain at "the minorities" was revealed by your clever trap. Lo, I am truly humbled...

Or, one would certainly hope that no minorities would require lessons from anyone to know how the world is, but here we are in a discussion involving Cultural Appropriation about lovely sushi. It's a good thing that my supposed "lessons" are applicable to everyone (especially white children) who has the erroneus assumption that they're somehow special in how they will be treated by the world at large when they feel offended.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 15:45

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

You sound really offended about this conversation, maybe you should accept that you're not special and no one cares.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 15:46

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

rudatron posted:

No no no no no, I cannot accept. Racism is a useful category because it groups bad things together without being tautologically defined as a group containing only 'negative' things , you idiot - they all share a common property that you can judge as being bad, racism.

Haha no that's a circular definition. Seriously, racism is what shared the property of racism?

What is your definition of racism?

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:03

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Obdicut posted:

James Baldwin talks eloquently, but basically reminds black people that it's important for them to remember that they're not the crazy ones, that the world is exactly as you say, full of bigots and assholes and that society itself is bigoted towards them. That they deserve to feel the anger they do, that it's appropriate, and that they should temper it and forge it into strength instead of madness inside them.

And for the most part, he's absolutely right (from your description above, I've not read any of his work). But does he also remind people to manage their expectations?

Obdicut posted:

We're not 'teaching' them to be offended. "Offended" is a word that's entered this discourse in a weird, belittling way, it implies, with US free speech values, that the person can't hack it, or is a wimp. People are hurt, humiliated, annoyed, angered, shamed, they feel obviously left out, invisible, passed over, unimportant, reminded of their second-class status. This is going to happen whether or not we 'encourage' them to feel it. The little things, the tiny slights, wouldn't matter at all if there weren't the big things behind them. When someone crosses over to the other side of the street to avoid a black guy, that's a small thing, and you can defend it easy--it's late, maybe he does that for everyone, not just me--but it still pangs a little bit. It wouldn't bug him at all if it wasn't a reminder and a reflection of the bigger things.

There is a difference in being hurt by something, and being offended by it. Being offended implies that you're going to take action about it, typically by complaining. Be it vocally, or on social media. You're teaching people (intentionally or not) that every greivance they have with the world is sufficient grounds to make a fuss about it, while the rest of the world just deals with it and moves on. Outside of your protective bubble, the world just laughs at you when you get offended about the Starbucks cup no longer having snowflakes on it.

You're describing microaggressions, which I can understand are hurtful over time. But if I run to the media when the suits from marketing give me dirty looks for dressing down at work, the world will rightly laugh at me.

Obdicut posted:

So the reason you're wrong is that humans are humans, and they don't just react to what is immediately in front of them, but think about it in the context of their whole lives. Asian Americans grow up looking at media where they very clearly are seen as supporting characters, often just comic relief, almost never the lead, with most Asian american leads in US movies and TV being mixed-race. Those in successful families may have parents who've encountered the racism against Asians in the US corporate market that prevents them from rising above a certain level most of the time. Stereotypes of Asian men as sexually inadequate and perverted abound.

Where you're failing is thinking that human beings act to each incident separately, on its own merits. They don't. And just as you say that these young folks need to deal with the world as it really is, full of bigots and assholes, so you have to deal with how humans really are.

Which is exactly why you shouldn't build a sense of entitlement in young adults through constant reinforcement of their taking offense at minutiae. As everything is going to offend a person like that, and the rest of the world won't walk on eggshells for yet another complainer.

As such a small percentage (5.6%) of the population it's unsurprising that so few Asian-Americans are cast in leading roles. That doesn't make it a good thing mind, we could certainly use more diversity in cinema. To be honest, I'm just happy they stopped making all Asian characters know Kung-Fu.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Talmonis posted:

You're describing microaggressions, which I can understand are hurtful over time. But if I run to the media when the suits from marketing give me dirty looks for dressing down at work, the world will rightly laugh at me.

Did they run to the media? According to the article the students took their complaints about the food to the dining hall management, like everyone who has a problem with the food they paid for does, the student newspaper wrote about it, and the media picked it up and started making a big deal about uppity Asians daring to criticize the meals that they paid to eat.

There's nothing in the article that suggests the students called any national newspapers, looks like they handled it how white people who want better value for their money handle bad food every single day.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:17

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

VitalSigns posted:

You sound really offended about this conversation, maybe you should accept that you're not special and no one cares.

Way ahead of you there hoss. Embrace existential nihilism, you'll feel better.

And Offended? Nah, more bored of the constant attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with them as awful racists who should never have an opinion. As if implying someone is a racist means gently caress-all in this place, and invoking it in a sad attempt at using magic words to make someone lose whatever argument. So here, let me get it out of the way for you, I'm a mean ol' racist whitesplainer who has opinions on racism that arent' "Agree with you entirely". Probably a misogynist and homophobe too, for good measure.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:18

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

VitalSigns posted:

Did they run to the media? According to the article the students took their complaints about the food to the dining hall management, like everyone who has a problem with the food they paid for does, the student newspaper wrote about it, and the media picked it up and started making a big deal about uppity Asians daring to criticize the meals that they paid to eat.

There's nothing in the article that suggests the students called any national newspapers, looks like they handled it how white people who want better value for their money handle bad food every single day.

These people are loving annoying. It applies to everyone. And the school newspaper is the Media, regardless of scale.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:20

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

You sound pretty offended man, but the world doesn't owe you anything so get over it. You sure don't sound bored, since you keep coming back here to get more offended.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:20

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

3/10: Terrible low-effort trolling.

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:21

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Talmonis posted:

These people are loving annoying. It applies to everyone. And the school newspaper is the Media, regardless of scale.

Did they go to the newspaper or did the newspaper just report on the complaint.

How dare people complain if they're not satisfied with their product or service. They should pay money and thank the company for the opportunity!

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 07:49

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Obdicut posted:

Haha no that's a circular definition. Seriously, racism is what shared the property of racism?

What is your definition of racism?

So I actually have to do this, huh?

Merriam Webster posted:

noun

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

Oxford posted:

noun
[mass noun]
1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one�s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism

Wiktionary posted:

Noun

racism ‎(countable and uncountable, plural racisms)

The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
The belief that one race or group of races is superior or inferior to another race or group of races.
Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Anything that satisfies that definition has the property of being racist, and is in the category of racism - I'm being terse and using the same name for both, if that bothers you then insert 'The set of/in the set of' where appropriate from context. Are you now adequately prepared? I hope so, because you are much worse at pedantry than I am.

Now, if you could just address, I dunno, the rest of my last post beyond the first line, that would be great.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Dec 22, 2015

# ? Dec 22, 2015 16:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is that racist?

«‹›33 »