|
There's a reason why Walt Disney is part of the inspiration for Andrew Ryan, Mr House, and other morally dubious at best sci-fi megalomaniacs. (Hell, there's a Batman The Animated Series episode that's basically the whole drat plot of Bioshock years before Bioshock, plus the cryogenically frozen urban legend)
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:There's a reason why Walt Disney is part of the inspiration for Andrew Ryan, Mr House, and other morally dubious at best sci-fi megalomaniacs. (Hell, there's a Batman The Animated Series episode that's basically the whole drat plot of Bioshock years before Bioshock, plus the cryogenically frozen urban legend) Yeah Disney was quite fascist and an all-around weird, horrible guy. Batman TAS and Spiderman TAS ruled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Who's culture? I don't think you mentioned that and to be honest it's not clear at all to me. Which cultures wear lingerie for drinking parties as an important cultural practice? Or I guess even just wearing lingerie. Who's culture is he wearing as a costume?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I don't want to prescribe what you can suggest. I want to know what you suggest. Because I don't understand what you're suggesting. What does "actual people in the local governments, elected officials and staff ideally, taking their sweet time getting various paperwork in order, people hired, etc. and Disney taking it's own time restructuring the divisions responsible for maintenance." mean? Are you suggesting the county just not do debt payment or road maintenance? Because deliberately not carrying out their statutory duties and not paying scheduled debt is a really quick way for them to get sued. Good morning. Yes, I want the counties to have to get sued for Desantis' lovely law to start impacting them. Exactly. Because that poo poo takes time, time in which other solutions can be worked on. And during that time, I think everyone should go about business as usual. I'm no lawyer, but if there was ever a big dumb tax thing that looked like a taking, it's this. The company spent years building and approving infrastructure for its own use. Now the citizens of the local county are responsible for the costs of all this poo poo that they didn't ask for and was not built or setup under the auspices of their democratically elected government? That their local government had no authority to prevent or disapprove of? Facially incorrect. Have the feds ever tried to stick a locality with the costs of military base upkeep? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:I'm not sure how that intersects with stuff like drag. hoo boy, I mean, how long have you got
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Good morning. Yes, I want the counties to have to get sued for Desantis' lovely law to start impacting them. Exactly. Because that poo poo takes time, time in which other solutions can be worked on. And during that time, I think everyone should to about business as usual. The problem with that is that I really don't see how the counties are going to win either potential lawsuit....either the one filed by the creditors on the debt, or the one filed by Disney for failure to maintain county roads. And then the counties are still responsible for the original costs, plus the legal fees, plus whatever damages the courts want to award. As for other solutions, what other solutions do you see? That's what I'm asking for. How do you see this playing out? Because for me, I'm not really seeing any solution playing out beyond the counties getting screwed over for a year, and then next year, Disney reapplying for and being granted the special status back. the Florida legislature crowing about they stood up to Disney and their woke Marxist agenda. But if you see solutions to the problem beyond that, feel free. I didn't see your additional part, so to respond. quote:The company spent years building and approving infrastructure for its own use. Now the citizens of the local county are responsible for the costs of all this poo poo that they didn't ask for and was not built or setup under the auspices of their democratically elected government? That their local government had no authority to prevent or disapprove of? Facially incorrect. Have the feds ever tried to stick a locality with the costs of military base upkeep? Legally, Disney didn't build those roads. The Reedy Creek Improvement District did, which, sure, was owned by Disney but was technically a government As for the last question, I don't think so. Here's an economic analysis about the costs to Utah of federal land being turned over to them, though (which sovers some of the same sort of thing....land management has recurring costs for things like fire and environmental) https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/uebr2014no3.pdf I agree with your underlying point, though, that this is unfair, which is why I'm disagreeing with people in the thread who think this is a good thing. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:The problem with that is that I really don't see how the counties are going to win either potential lawsuit....either the one filed by the creditors on the debt, or the one filed by Disney for failure to maintain county roads. And then the counties are still responsible for the original costs, plus the legal fees, plus whatever damages the courts want to award. See I'm not familiar with Florida's laws enough to say that they definitely are responsible for those costs. But they are already thoroughly screwed and I'm still not sure Florida can constitutionally require this upkeep. These localities did not gently caress up and overextend themselves. They did not choose or approve these roads. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:See I'm not familiar with Florida's laws enough to say that they definitely are responsible for those costs. But they are already thoroughly screwed and I'm still not sure Florida can constitutionally require this upkeep. Why not? Upkeep of civil infrastructure is a perfectly sensible thing for the law to require. The law just didn't anticipate a situation in which a third party was given a license to built much more infrastructure than the county could handle, and then that license was revoked out of spite
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Why not? Upkeep of civil infrastructure is a perfectly sensible thing for the law to require. The law just didn't anticipate a situation in which a third party was given a license to built much more infrastructure than the county could handle, and then that license was revoked out of spite You pretty much explained it. This is not a "perfectly sensible" situation nor outcome. This is arguably not "civil" infrastructure. This is Disney infrastructure. The locals were not involved, they had no say, so they should not pay. I've crossposted to the law A/T thread and am considering asking the nerds in the SCOTUS thread as well since "takings" is a somewhat esoteric area of conlaw. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I think that the burden would be on you to argue that crossdressing is a cultural practice, rather than saying that I ought to prove it’s not. This is what cultural appropriation is: Cultural appropriation[1][2] is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity.[3][4][5] This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures.[6][1][7] As for clothing being culture or not: clothing is not a requirement for living beings on our planet. The origin, design, and use of clothing is always cultural, definitively. Speaking of, you use the word gender in your response. Gender is a social construct, not a biological one. So, you're diluting your point of "clothing isn't cultural" when you say "the act of dressing in clothes typically associated with another gender." "Associated" even on its own is used to refer to a subjective use (read: cultural) rather than an objective use. You also use the word "crossdressing." If clothing isn't cultural then what does the "cross" in "crossdressing" mean? Obviously it is dressing in a manner not associated with one's cultural norms. If Cawthorn wears bras in his day to day life, fine. He's just a hypocrite because he's anti-LGBTQ+ in public. If he does not wear bras on a regular basis then it fits the definition of cultural appropriation as he is actively engaging in activities from other (and notably minority in comparison) cultures. If you want to say "it's okay for him to do that" then my response is "whatever." But if you want to say that this isn't cultural appropriation or that clothing isn't culture then you're completely wrong. I am glad that you disagreed with me, though; you might still dig your long, pointy stiletto heels in, but at least others can learn more about cultural appropriation. Edit: vvvvvv whelp, as expected. Awesome job not responding with anything of substance. I even gave you the definition of the term. If anyone is making their own definition it is you. Edit2: at this point maybe critical thinking would be cultural appropriation for you. It's not fair for me to engage with you with supporting evidence. The Sean fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
So, yes, your definition of culture is meaninglessly broad. Got it. RE: your edit I’m not sure what you expect. We’re not gonna arrive at some truth when we disagree on the underlying assumptions. Baronash fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Culture is obviously incredibly broad, it's inclusive of most of the poo poo we do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Why not? Upkeep of civil infrastructure is a perfectly sensible thing for the law to require. The law just didn't anticipate a situation in which a third party was given a license to built much more infrastructure than the county could handle, and then that license was revoked out of spite I think a county could decide to close a road, assuming you're not eliminating the last access for a property (or maybe yes even then, if you allow an easement for Disney to use a hypothetical rubble-ized road). There's not a free-floating interest to county residents and businesses in the existence of a particular bridge, culvert, or roadway. I think Disney could enter into MOU's with the county that in exchange for ongoing consideration, the county agrees to maintain certain infrastructure. Or just that the county agrees to let Disney maintain certain infrastructure owned by the county. It's a little simpler here since Disney has been doing it for years, that doing something in that fashion feels like the 'status quo' while a more permanent solution gets sorted out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
If Disney can't maintain and oversee their own infrastructure and it falls back to the counties, realistically those counties are just going to contract that work back to Disney since they already have the equipment and own everything needed. And i'm sure Disney will charge a premium to the taxpayers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:If Disney can't maintain and oversee their own infrastructure and it falls back to the counties, realistically those counties are just going to contract that work back to Disney since they already have the equipment and own everything needed. And i'm sure Disney will charge a premium to the taxpayers. When folks say "maintain" a road, a great deal of the cost is about hiring contractors to fix potholes on a yearly basis, resurface roads on a 5-10 year basis, do a full-depth reconstruction on a 20-30 year basis (or longer if concrete, but more money too). Bridges need yearly inspections, and similar work to what is done on roadways. Culverts will periodically need rehabilitation to repair the invert. Traffic signals will need replacement. Other than having a crew that might be able to throw cold patch in potholes, that work was likely contracted out by Disney last year, and will be contracted out by the county next year. The difference is that Disney might have its roads resurfaced every 2 years to make it a nicer experience, and now the county will put it on the same maintenance list as the rest of its roads, if it decides to keep them. Mowing the grass with Disney personnel is the low-hanging fruit, and I don't expect that Disney would try to rip off the county on a lawn-mowing contract while the county is deciding whether it's going to abandon infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This seems to be a disagreement about the meaning of "fair share" but no one is defining the term. The tax structure of Florida appears to be impossible to make it fair based on Vitalsigns explanation of the restrictions. The counties should be able to raise these taxes from Disney needed to maintain the roads Disney planned, built, and that are used to its near exclusive benefit. It's not really a problem with the tax structure at all. Reedy Creek Improvement District funded this infrastructure by imposing a property tax on every taxpayer in their jurisdiction (which is basically just Disney). Now the counties are going to fund it the same way: by raising the property taxes that apply to every taxpayer in their jurisdiction. There's really no way around raising taxes here, since the two counties are suddenly being saddled with a totally unplanned $100 million a year in obligations and $1 billion in debt out of nowhere. The counties are limited on how much they can raise the sales tax, and unable to impose income tax or corporate tax, but even putting this entirely on corporate tax wouldn't make this "fair", since it'd still be a transfer of money from other companies to pay for Disney's infrastructure. When it comes down to it, the special district was great for the counties, and dissolving it only to start hypothesizing a way to institute the exact same financial structure that the district already had is rather pointless - especially when the legislature has no intention whatsoever of making any of these hypothetical changes that might cushion the blow on counties. It's not also not really viable for the counties to not pay it, outside of declaring bankruptcy (which will have significant impact on the entire county). Refusing to pay the debt will heavily impact counties' financial situation, and cutting off funding to things like fire departments will get people killed. Dissolving the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a bad idea in the first place. The counties needing to raise taxes is an unavoidable consequence of that idea. Harold Fjord posted:You pretty much explained it. This is not a "perfectly sensible" situation nor outcome. Legally, this is civil infrastructure built by the Reedy Creek Improvement District, decided by the district's elected government and funded by the district's property taxes. Disney is basically the only landowner in the entire district, so they're the only voter and the only ones paying tax, but that doesn't change the fact that this is all normal civil governance - just run with an electorate of one and a tax base of one. And legally, when a special district is dissolved (and there's over 100 special districts in Florida, this isn't that special), its debts and obligations fall upon the counties. That's right there in the laws defining special districts. The district itself wasn't legally unusual, the only reason it was dominated by Disney was because no one lived there except Disney. It's worth remembering that this isn't just roads, either. Reedy Creek's $100 million in yearly expenses also includes essential services like firefighters, which can't realistically be put on hold for a year or two while counties fund a futile legal challenge (which also costs money - in fact, both the counties' lawsuit and the state's defense would be paid for by taxpayers). There's also the fact that the counties would be inheriting Reedy Creek's debts, money owed as a result of bond issues and such. That's $1 billion owed, and refusing to pay would get them in hot water because (once again) these are debts that legally transfer to the counties if a special district gets dissolved. This entire issue is entirely the fault of the state government for haphazardly and thoughtlessly dismantling the RCID on the spot, without even giving it a few years to let the counties get prepared and let the RCID wind things down. DeSantis and his loyal lackeys in the legislature decided punishing pro-LGBT statements was way more important, and totally worth screwing over the local governments (though since these are blue counties, screwing them over might be a bonus for him). There really isn't any easy way out; the governor and the legislature together decided to screw over the counties, and now the counties are screwed over and a bunch of urban blue voters are gonna end up with hefty tax hikes (just the way the GOP likes it).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
The bill that passed didn’t dissolve it on the spot. It started a year long process that will never finish. The republicans get to look like they got a big win when they didn’t really do anything and know it won’t happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
I fail to see how explaining it all again refutes what I said. Let Disney fight their own fires. They still have an interest in their poo poo not burning down. Im reasonably certain it is not constitutional for the government to build something without local consent and then turn around and tell the people living there that actually they have to pay millions of dollars for it now. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
In the end the best solution is basically the RCID in everything but name only. Disney wants its prestige facade and the counties don’t wanna take on the burden’s. If this isn’t struck down in the courts we’ll end up back at the same spot we are now: Disney pays its property tax like it does now and through some contract or agreement with the counties it’ll have control over the roadways and utilities it does now. Anything else is simply not feasible for the counties to take on unless the state steps in and starts paying for the old RCID’s upkeep when the counties default from the expense and in that case  that Desantis’s big brain anti-woke move ends up with him handing money off to the demands of Disney
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I fail to see how explaining it all again refutes what I said. Let Disney fight their own fires. They still have an interest in their poo poo not burning down. I have an interest in my house not burning down too, but that's not a justification for the county not providing fire service to my house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I have an interest in my house not burning down too, but that's not a justification for the county not providing fire service to my house. Yes the justification would lie in you, to make this analogy closer to the situation, getting to build a house in a way not reasonably accessible to the fire services based on providing your own because you made a deal over the locals heads. If you stop providing your own, you can't reasonably demand the locals build the necessary infrastructure to bring you fire services. The locals not agreeing to whatever you did is in fact justification to leave you high and dry. I am arguing that this is unconstitutional. You are arguing that it is happening. These seem to be points aimed past each other. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
The Sean posted:This is what cultural appropriation is: Your own provided definition of cultural appropriation doesn't say anything about a "regular basis" or frequency. Cultural appropriation can 100% be committed by someone who does it on a regular basis (e.g. running a business based on a culture that is not the owner's). In my opinion, you seem to be conflating culture with targeted marketing (e.g. gendered clothing) Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Feedback thread up, which may be of interest to everyone here because this thread is one of its recommended topics: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4000307
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Unlikely that power plant ever existed. What he's referring to is that 1960s Florida legislature was so thorough in endowing special powers that they gave Walt Disney the right to run an airport or build a nuclear power plant with mouse ears on the coolers on that property if he chose to do it, and if the host cities/counties didn't like it they could kick rocks. All this was of course part of the weird Le Corbusier moment that Uncle Walt had before he died, where he thought he could get people interested in urban planning. What a totalitarian fascist dickhead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I am arguing that this is unconstitutional. You are arguing that it is happening. These seem to be points aimed past each other. I think my argument is that while the Legislature's actions were bad policy and fundamentally unfair to the people of Orange and Osceola county, the law isn't unconstitutional on its face, and while it's possible the law violates either the Florida Constitution or some right in the federal constitution, until the law is found unconstitutional in court, we need to assume its constitutionality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What a totalitarian fascist dickhead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsP71i7O49U Part of me wonders if it is because he wanted this party to never happen again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I fail to see how explaining it all again refutes what I said. Let Disney fight their own fires. They still have an interest in their poo poo not burning down. What particular constitutional provisions do you believe it's violating?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Your own provided definition of cultural appropriation doesn't say anything about a "regular basis" or frequency. Cultural appropriation can 100% be committed by someone who does it on a regular basis (e.g. running a business based on a culture that is not the owner's). It doesn't say anything about frequency because it is not relevant. If someone does blackface once is it okay because they don't frequently do it? I appreciate that you recognize that it is your opinion but I am objectively using the term/concept correctly without what your opinion is referring to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What particular constitutional provisions do you believe it's violating? Possibly the takings clause. To be clear, I'm not saying they can't abolish the special district, I'm saying I don't think they can declare a retroactive targeted tax already past due for millions of dollars the way they seem to be. There is a constitutional right to due process and these citizens should take every possible measure under it. I'm sure there are property-owning law firms in these counties. Maybe under Citizens United they are now being legally required to adopt Disney's speech. You can't compel speech! Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
The Sean posted:It doesn't say anything about frequency because it is not relevant. If someone does blackface once is it okay because they don't frequently do it? I still don't follow which culture he's stealing from and I still don't think you've said. LGBTQIA? Trans people specifically? CIS men who wear lingerie? CIS Women who wear lingerie? Are those CIS men culturally appropriating from CIS women when they wear lingerie? If he was a CIS woman would it be cultural appropriation still or just a woman wearing lingerie at a party? Your definition is a bit  He sucks but this line of attack just feels like such nonsense because the same logic would say some pretty crummy stuff about people just trying to live their lives. I don't think that's what you're trying to say, just that the logic doesn't really check out.
Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I still don't follow which culture he's stealing from and I still don't think you've said. LGBTQIA? Trans people specifically? CIS men who wear lingerie? CIS Women who wear lingerie? Are those CIS men culturally appropriating from CIS women when they wear lingerie? If he was a CIS woman would it be cultural appropriation still or just a woman wearing lingerie at a party? Are you doing a bit? The last comments you made on this clearly show that you are cognizant of exactly where cultural lines are and how this factors in. Receipts: Gumball Gumption posted:Like, I get the angle of attack that he's a hypocrite but I think that just makes him a hypocrite and no one cares if Republicans are hypocrites. Unless we're using wildly different definitions of culture I feel like calling this cultural appropriation just waters down that term. Wearing sacred cultural items as decoration while you get wasted is cultural appropriation, this is just wearing lingerie and getting wasted while saying you love the Jesus who hates those things. How would he be, as you said, a hypocrite if this has nothing to do with culture? And then how do you explain why he is a hypocrite if you just now stated you don't understand when it is or is not appropriate? In at least one of these posts you are being dishonest because they are contradictory. The Sean fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Are you doing a bit? The last comments you made on this clearly show that you are cognizant of exactly where cultural lines are and how this factors in. Which culture? You've only answered questions with questions and assumptions of bad faith. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Which culture? You've only answered questions with questions and assumptions of bad faith. "You are contradicting yourself" is not a question. It is a statement and it is accurate. It is also something you are not addressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Frequency of engaging in certain cultural rituals can be suggestive of good faith participation vs mockery, but we'll never see inside of Cawthorns secretest soul and based on what we know I feel safe assuming he's just being a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
The Sean posted:"You are contradicting yourself" is not a question. It is a statement and it is accurate. It is also something you are not addressing. It's also not an answer to anything I've asked.  We can agree to disagree that a man wearing lingerie isn't cultural appropriation, just personal hypocrisy on Cawthorn's part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I fail to see how explaining it all again refutes what I said. Let Disney fight their own fires. They still have an interest in their poo poo not burning down. It's definitely constitutional. It's not really any different from disincorporating a town, which also causes the town's assets and liabilities to be inherited by the county the town was in, even though the county didn't get a say in the town's policies that led to those debts. The government did build something with local consent. Legally speaking, Reedy Creek Improvement District was not "Disney", it was "the government". What's happening now is that the government in question is being dissolved, and its assets and liabilities are passing to the next government up the chain, as is customary in cases like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's also not an answer to anything I've asked. How is it hypocrisy if you don't know how cultural appropriation works? You would have to have an understanding of appropriteness to declare it hypocritical. And this isn't about "a man wearing lingerie" it is about one very specific person--you know that. The Sean fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
The Sean posted:How is it hypocrisy if you don't know how cultural appropriation works? And this isn't about "a man wearing lingerie" it is about one very specific person--you know that. Because it goes against the personal beliefs he has stated he has, that's personal hypocrisy. At this point I'm just going to assume the culture you think he's stealing from is the Victoria's Secret Angels and we can leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Because it goes against the personal beliefs he has stated he has, that's personal hypocrisy. . Oh so he's doing something outside of his own stated culture, from a culture he marginalizes, in an inappropriate form--like the exact definition of cultural appropriation. Thank you for making my point. I think your struggle with it was probably valuable for other people who may have had issues with the use of the phrase "cultural appropriation" in this context. Specifically in that you doubted it but gave a textbook definition of it in the end. The Sean fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
The Sean posted:Oh so he's doing something outside of his own stated culture, from a culture he marginalizes, in an inappropriate form--like the exact definition of cultural appropriation. Ahh ok, I was not using his own Judeo-Christian values as my anchor for cultural appropriation. So a man wearing "women's clothing" is cultural appropriation if you're a hardcore Christian. That's not really how people normally frame it so I get the confusion now. I still think this is an atypical understanding but it's at least finally logically consistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2022 19:37
|
|