|
Gantolandon posted:I don't think your gotcha works. I can agree with wateroverfire about CA and disagree on other things. My arguments about CA cannot be taken verbatim to justify paying women less. You agree with wateroverfire that opening a door for a woman isn't harmful and no one should care about it, but you disagree with him that paying women less isn't harmful sexism because there's some other justification. This is no problem for you, this doesn't turn sexism into this impossible fog of shifting definitions that no one can agree on, and anyone who said it did would just be using a cop-out to avoid addressing anything substantial. But here you are doing exactly that, taking Effectronica's absurd view and insisting anyone who disagrees with you either has to embrace Eff's posts wholeheartedly or admit that no one can ever draw a line in this shadowy mist. Gantolandon posted:As for "intentions and effects" part, you are now moving your goalposts. It was only about effects before. Yeah, the intent means a huge lot for definitions such as sexism, which tend to assume some specific mindset of the perpetrator. Bad intentions and bad effects are usually intertwined in pretty much all human interactions, mentioning them is not "moving the goalposts". You're casting around for rhetorical points instead of actually addressing what I'm saying.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
CarrKnight posted:No. Every example about CA brought forward turned out to be about something else. CA is terrible precisely because it is deployed so poorly. Something can have more than one aspect. Take stereotyping. It's bad because of the effects of racism, but it doesn't make sense to say "stereotype is a meaningless term, you're just talking about racism". It has a meaning, it's one specific way that racism can be expressed but it's not synonymous. And stereotyping isn't always bad either, if the group being stereotyped doesn't suffer at the hands of racist institutions. The French Knights in Monty Python's Holy Grail were some outlandish stereotypes, but they were funny. It would be pretty absurd to say that because of this example, bad stereotypes didn't exist or that it's a fuzzy meaningless term. We can look at the context of things and decide whether they're harmful or not, we don't have to adhere to some weird absolutism in which something must be always horrible and anathema every time, or it must always be totally fine. That wouldn't be a very useful way of looking at the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
quote:Take stereotyping. It's bad because of the effects of racism, but it doesn't make sense to say "stereotype is a meaningless term, you're just talking about racism". Stereotyping is bad only because of the context. Much like CA. Sure. Take Russell Peters. He's a bore, but his stereotyping isn't there to psuh a racist agenda. Again, it's bad or good according to the context so that we agree on that. I just go one step ahead: we only have to look at the context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:It seems to me like these two statements can't coexist. Not at least if you also want to pass a value judgment. Okay that would read better as "When it's bad, it's bad because of the effects of racism...", poor wording.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
But if we agree on everything, why do we still disagree?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
I don't know why. Could you elaborate on this? I don't get what you mean.CarrKnight posted:I just go one step ahead: we only have to look at the context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
i fart in your general direction and make it extra stinky!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
VitalSigns posted:You agree with wateroverfire that opening a door for a woman isn't harmful and no one should care about it, but you disagree with him that paying women less isn't harmful sexism because there's some other justification. This is no problem for you, this doesn't turn sexism into this impossible fog of shifting definitions that no one can agree on, and anyone who said it did would just be using a cop-out to avoid addressing anything substantial. But here you are doing exactly that, taking Effectronica's absurd view and insisting anyone who disagrees with you either has to embrace Eff's posts wholeheartedly or admit that no one can ever draw a line in this shadowy mist. I disagree with wateroverfire because he's taking a completely arbitrary criterion to build a justification why women are worse workers and should be paid less. Opening a door before a woman is not sexism, because there are no underlying assumptions there, only a custom people follow because they don't want to appear impolite. The distinction is as clear as it could be. Your position is hard to distinguish from Effectronica's, because they come from taking exactly the same definition and filling it with completely arbitrary criteria. You're saying getting a Kanji tattoo is irrelevant because it doesn't do any harm, Effectronica actually says it's devastating for Japanese-American culture. You both agreed that it's up to the affected group and no one else to decide if they should be outraged about this or not. There were examples of Japanese-Americans upset about Kanji tattoos (and rice cookers). By the definition you both use and other assumptions you both agreed to be true, Effectronica's position is just as valid as yours. It doesn't seem OK for you? This is pretty much what you've been fighting for. The concept and assumptions you consider perfectly valid are what enables Tumblrinas to condemn non-Asians for using rice cookers. For some inscrutable reason, you chose to defend Effectronica's right to claim racial oppression whenever a white woman wears a kimono. quote:Bad intentions and bad effects are usually intertwined in pretty much all human interactions, mentioning them is not "moving the goalposts". You're casting around for rhetorical points instead of actually addressing what I'm saying. Intentions and effects are a completely separate thing. In case of sexism, it's the former, not the latter, that matters. If I accidentally hit a group of people with a car and cause the deaths of 4 women and 1 man, it's not sexist just because more female pedestrians got killed. If I give a woman a pay rise because I just like her rear end, it's still sexism even if her monthly wage is now bigger than most men in the company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:I disagree with wateroverfire because he's taking a completely arbitrary criterion to build a justification why women are worse workers and should be paid less. Opening a door before a woman is not sexism, because there are no underlying assumptions there, only a custom people follow because they don't want to appear impolite. The distinction is as clear as it could be. Well it's always up to the individual in question to decide whether they're offended or not; it's not possible to force someone not to be mad. But it's up to you whether that's worth caring about. Someone posts this:  No. But when Native Americans say "hey dressing up like us and using our religious symbols for Halloween parties or sporting events is a dick thing to do, mind not doing that", that sounds reasonable to me. Gantolandon posted:Intentions and effects are a completely separate thing. In case of sexism, it's the former, not the latter, that matters. If I accidentally hit a group of people with a car and cause the deaths of 4 women and 1 man, it's not sexist just because more female pedestrians got killed. If I give a woman a pay rise because I just like her rear end, it's still sexism even if her monthly wage is now bigger than most men in the company. No, it's possible to be sexist without deliberate intent. For example, a company policy that says no maternity/paternity leave period would disproportionately affect women's careers, and someone could establish that policy without realizing this. Now once that's pointed out, the person has a choice to change it or say "I don't give a poo poo" and be indifferent to the sexism, but it's not reasonable to say "well I did not intend to be sexist when I made this policy, therefore it's not sexist". Another example is a defense I've heard to the crack vs powder cocaine sentencing: that the original law was supported by the Congressional Black Caucus at the time to fight the crack epidemic that they thought was responsible for destroying their neighborhoods. Therefore, goes the reasoning, since progressive black politicians supported it, it cannot be a racist policy. I don't think I need to explain to you the problem with this reasoning. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
you guys are arguing over the definition of hypothetical situations such as hitting five people with your car or crack vs cocaine. you're both idiots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
They're discussing if racism requires intent. I agree that policies and practices can be racist absent intent. Isn't that a big part of institutional racism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Don't worry Cole just posts here because we're actually slower to probate him than his usual hangout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well it's always up to the individual in question to decide whether they're offended or not; it's not possible to force someone not to be mad. But it's up to you whether that's worth caring about. Someone posts this: That's what I called a completely arbitrary criterion. You made this look easy by taking the most obvious example possible and ignoring the more difficult ones already presented in this thread. quote:No, it's possible to be sexist without deliberate intent. For example, a company policy that says no maternity/paternity leave period would disproportionately affect women's careers, and someone could establish that policy without realizing this. Now once that's pointed out, the person has a choice to change it or say "I don't give a poo poo" and be indifferent to the sexism, but it's not reasonable to say "well I did not intend to be sexist when I made this policy, therefore it's not sexist". Let me tell you about another thing that disproportionately affects women: cervical cancer. It's the most sexist thing possible, because it doesn't affect men at all. Ebola is a great example of racism, because most people who caught and died from it were black. Japanese nationalism was, in fact, racist against Japanese people, because it caused their country to get invaded by Americans who killed a great amount of them. No maternity/paternity leave is not a sexist policy, though very harmful to the worker and the society overall. It disproportionately affects women because they are the ones who are expected to give up their careers and take care of the children - that's where the sexism is. As for racism and crack cocaine - yes, an explanation would be helpful. For me it's a very good example of a policy that backfired against black community despite not being racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:No maternity/paternity leave is not a sexist policy, though very harmful to the worker and the society overall. It disproportionately affects women because they are the ones who are expected to give up their careers and take care of the children - that's where the sexism is. Also possibly the bit where they are pregnant, that might be considered a contributing factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And stereotyping isn't always bad either, if the group being stereotyped doesn't suffer at the hands of racist institutions. Can you list which groups don't suffer from racist institutions, so I know which cultural identity I can dress as for Halloween. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
I just ordered a couple of books about cultural appropriation on Amazon. While browsing, I saw a description for one book that seemed to be advocating expanding copyright law to apply to things such as folklore. I could be completely wrong on this issue, but some things about the concept of cultural appropriation are hard for me to swallow in a way that other social justice concepts, such as privilege, are not. On one hand, I understand that members of dominant cultures have on many occasions profited from works inspired by members of marginalized cultures due to an unequal social environment. On the other hand, contemporary cultural ideas and practices are the result of several millenia worth of human cultures influencing one another, and seeing some intellectuals seriously propose the idea that there should be a legal framework to disallow people from drawing influence from anything outside their culture (or to prevent individuals from illegally sharing their culture without express permission from an appointed authority) sounds like the set-up for some kind of dystopian society. I feel kinda bad for having such a negative view of the concept of cultural appropriation, as I know it has some value and is intended to prevent harm to marginalized cultures, but right now I can't help but feel like it has the potential to cause unintended harm (such as becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy by dissuading those prople who would otherwise interact with other cultures respectfully from doing so at all for fear of becoming appropriators, leaving only those people who don't give a drat about respect). I also suspect that at least some proponents of the concept of cultural appropriation don't realize how much of mainstream culture might be considered appropriative: for example, the word Zombi came from a West African deity, became a concept for a soulless living servant controlled by evil magic-users, came to Haiti through the slave trade, were used as the subject of several American works of fiction, and ultimately were redefined as animalistic undead beings when the term was applied to the undead creatures of George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead by film critics. The film itself referred to its creatures as ghouls, a term that Romero initially preferred over the critics' use of zombie but later came to accept; as it so happens, the concept of the "ghoul" was itself a kind of demon appropriated from Babylonian and Assyrian mythology by the ancient Arabians, who thought of it as a jinni that laired in graveyards and ate the dead so the jinni could assume their forms, and was later reappropriated by Europeans who eventually came to conceive of them as undead creatures instead of corpse-eating jinnis or underworld demons. So who should own the rights to the modern zombie, and who wrongfully appropriated from who? George A. Romero, the film critics who were apparently more familiar with zombies than ghouls, early 20th century writers and filmmakers, Haitian voudou practicioners, the descendants of the West African people groups where the term came from (provided they didn't just appropriate from someone else themselves), the descendants of the Babylonians and Assyrians, the descendants of the ancient Arabians, etc, etc, etc? I'm hoping that maybe one of the books I ordered can shed some more light on this issue for me, because trying to glean info from miscellaneous opinions sights sure didn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
It's not the job of the left, or anyone else, to freeze cultural relations at a specific moment in history. In cases where "cultural appropriation" is explicitly racist it should be called out and opposed but you can't really stop people from borrowing images, ideas, clothing, food or music from other groups. Trying to do so will just make you sound like an out of touch scold. I'd suggest that a better focus is the underlying relationships of power that make cultural appropriation so uneven. For instance, the real problem with white people "appropriating" the sound of black musicians in the 1950s was that black musicians didn't have the same access to musical recording studios or mass audiences. The way to fix that is to attack racism and economic inequality, not to try and police who is allowed to play certain types of music. A lot of the implications of this discourse on cultural appropriation seem massively conservative if they are carried through to their logical conclusions. I have no desire to help defend "traditional" cultures that are often themselves highly ethnocentric and sexist. As long as the underlying power relationships are relatively balanced I don't really care who steals from who because literally every culture that exists is an amalgam of past cultures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's not the job of the left, or anyone else, to freeze cultural relations at a specific moment in history. In cases where "cultural appropriation" is explicitly racist it should be called out and opposed but you can't really stop people from borrowing images, ideas, clothing, food or music from other groups. Trying to do so will just make you sound like an out of touch scold. Thank you for this clear statement of exactly why "cultural appropriation" is a lousy, obfuscatory, and generally useless term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
I can 100% agree with this, I feel the reason it's been raised to prominence is because of conservative undertones in minority communities. So, as an example, ultra-conservative rabbis or whatever would love nothing more than to just wall themselves off, to 'protect' their kids from the outside (ie maintain their power in that community). I don't want to give that a milligram of respect. But it's impossible to, as a white person, say to a minority "I know about racism better than you" without coming off as arrogant and overbearing. The choice that creates the less conflict is to then simply over-value minority subjectivity - if they don't like it, it's bad, and bad in the ways they say. The problem is that every community has a power struggle going on within it, already existing power structures and people interested in maintaining that structure. The ideology that supports that structure is the one that will dominate minority experience, which may not be progressive. There's no greater example of this then that quote from the Lakota declaration: quote:7. We urge all our Indian brothers and sisters to act decisively and boldly in our present campaign to end the destruction of our sacred traditions, keeping in mind our highest duty as Indian people: to preserve the purity of our precious traditions for our future generations, so that our children and our children's children will survive and prosper in the sacred manner intended for each of our respective peoples by our Creator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Being part of a culture does not, and never will, obligate you to always act on behalf of the self-interest of the 'culture' as an abstract entity eg- If you children are not of your culture, you have not 'failed' in your duty. People are not a vehicle for the self-propagation of cultures, a culture's existence must serve human ends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
it is a pretty disgusting quote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That quote is basically the Fourteen Words for Indians. Yeah. Miltank posted:
Miltank fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That quote is basically the Fourteen Words for Indians. I think it's not as similar as the matches in certain words(with purity, preserve, for our children) makes it out to be. The importance is placed on preserving customs for the benefit of future generations' wellbeing, not on race/genetic/ethnic purity. It doesn't specify the children have to be of a certain breeding; it's a statement of traditionalism saying "don't overstep your natural bounds" which can be taken in many different ways due to cross-cultural differences in the way "Creator" is parsed. (especially if it's in a tradition that holds nature itself to be what humans are created from) It could easily be taken as an anarcho-primitivist or primitivist-communist (or naturalist instead of primitivist? does that work) declaration against the philosophy of francis bacon in extractively conquering nature without mindfulness of future consequences instead of sustainably respecting the limits of natural resources, and a warning to protect against encroachment of outside liberalizers who would (and historically, have) deprive(d) them of their means of subsistence so they have nothing to sell but their labor power. And at a discount rate, because the labor of social minorities get treated as an inferior commodity on the total market of labor due to the advantage capital-owners have in being able to choose who they like. e- this paragraph edited in: Meanwhile, the customs and practices that were good in the traditional society and could have benefited all of humankind if spread and integrated are at risk of being forgotten as generations are put through years of alienation and those philosophies and practices are no longer called on. (In case one thinks that a practice that would benefit all of humankind if allowed equal time on the world stage might automatically find its way to larger human society if it were intrinsically good enough, I'd contend that you might be understating how those who liberalize smaller cultures can assume their culture is superior and just not want to listen to those foreign ideas (see the active purging of heretical Mesoamerican records preventing things like the developed schools of Aztec philosophy from being added to humankind's world's knowledge), not have the opportunity to listen to them due to lack of exposure (housing segregation and ghettoing), might actively seek to suppress any outside ideas on sight to break the resolve of potential resistance (see slaveowners forbidding their slaves' practicing anything of their personal african heritage to prevent coded communication, formation of a consciousness and solidarity). Of course saying this I do know the flaws of a anarcho-primitivist or traditionalistic, nationalistic separatist ideology - the rejection of capital is Luddite-esque and means that so long as another power exists which does employ capital, it will be able to outproduce the separatist society and therefore have much greater ability to militarily conquer the separatist society if an ideological conflict pops up. So long as a larger power exists, your separate society can only exist unintruded-upon if you don't have things they want, or relying on the uncertainty of their good wishes (which can disappear in a flash if conditions change for them and scarcity causes them to find a new avenue to extract resources on land they had previously seen as marginal). Or as the Roots say about a society reprising the economic and climactic turmoil of the Grapes of Wrath "it don't matter how your gates are latched, you ain't safe from the danger, jack." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_dQeoWTeY8 Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I think it's not as similar as the matches in certain words(with purity, preserve, for our children) makes it out to be. The importance is placed on preserving customs for the benefit of future generations' wellbeing, not on race/genetic/ethnic purity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'd agree with that distinction, but I'm not sure that makes it any more permissible. That's still, in my mind, the elevation of the 'wellbeing' of a culture over the needs of a people today. That's a very conservative idea, one that I believe is motivated more by the preservation of a power structure than any real concern for future generations, and one I feel very strongly must be rejected wherever it is found. I think it might make it more permissible (depending on the specifics of cultural practice) because the wellbeing of a society today depends in large part on the actions of the previous generation's society. Take a hypothetical cultural outlook that urges old folks to plant fruit trees for public use, despite the fact that the old folks will be dead by the time the trees start yielding fruit. This leaves at least some kind of public capital for the next generation to make meeting means of subsistence easier. (Or take a ten year plan whose gains are socialized instead of snatched up by a state capitalist dictatorship of the proletariat that decides to consolidate power and become a dictatorship against the proletariat) Now, take a society living forever in the present that strip-mines the land for present benefit, strips the copper wiring from the walls of past works, and does not invest their earnings from their extractive economy for future generation's benefit. Without a previous generation establishing the ability for the next generation to provide for itself, then people in the present will have a harder time meeting their needs today. So the current generation can plan for that. It's an outlook that looks at society in the long-term and as a collective organ from which the wellbeing of the individual is created (instead of it being the other way around with liberalism's individualism), and whether it's rightist or leftist depends on interpretation of the specifics - does the proposed well-being of the community in the long-term come from a deterministic culture that has been rigidly determined on high from an atavistic time gone by (rightist, national myth), or is the Constitution (of a people) a living document, able to be modified with present and future considerations in mind? I can see how you might see it as the latter if Creator and "natural" are interpreted in the manner that most judeo-christian religious traditions with an emphasis on orthodoxy interpret it, but some other religious/ideological traditions interpret it differently. Take some animistic traditions (i'd ask effectronica here for some examples please because I know they know a lot about the subject and personally I'd like to learn more), taoism's spurning of piety and ritualism because living in the past is not keeping with the natural 'essence' of life from which all life is drawn, or buddhism's insistence that one's efforts for reducing the natural suffering of others can 'wrap around' karmaically for future creation. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
I think there's a difference between the wellbeing of future generations, and the 'purity' of the traditions of future generations. It's one thing to plant a seed, it's quite another to project your own traditions and customs onto future generations, for them to bear like a stone. These things just change, and future generations can bloody well make up their own minds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's not the job of the left, or anyone else, to freeze cultural relations at a specific moment in history. In cases where "cultural appropriation" is explicitly racist it should be called out and opposed but you can't really stop people from borrowing images, ideas, clothing, food or music from other groups. Trying to do so will just make you sound like an out of touch scold. We have a new best post in this terrible thread. e:  but it is imperative that we help conservatives prevent any deviations from their regressive model of society because they happen to be conservatives who are also not american't*  **only the white oppressor can be american't suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That quote is basically the Fourteen Words for Indians. Okay this is now the funniest quote this thread has produced. No, the neo-nazi creed that implies the subservience and destruction of other races is not the same thing as the desire of the Lakota to survive at all and for their culture not to be completely ripped apart and vanish into history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
since everyone is currently concerned/worried about/exasparated by/has seen posters talking about the amérindiens: if the majority of young lakota were to say "i want to be a fat suv driving americunt and dress up as an indian on halloween, not go out of my way to preserve the preserve the culture of a bunch of greybeards" then what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:since everyone is currently concerned/worried about/exasparated by/has seen posters talking about the amérindiens: Build a wall (and a firewall) around the reservations so the mysterious culture of the noble savages will be forever pristinely preserved as interpreted by the greybeards of the 50's and 60's. Who definitely did not modify even a single thing after receiving the oral traditions from their grandsires.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
blowfish posted:since everyone is currently concerned/worried about/exasparated by/has seen posters talking about the amérindiens: Then what what? I mean, they're not going to 'dress up like an indian' on Halloween, but if they want to get away from their culture, nothing is stopping them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then what what? I mean, they're not going to 'dress up like an indian' on Halloween, but if they want to get away from their culture, nothing is stopping them. What if they want to sell crafts and charms in the style of their people. Perhaps in some kind of convenience store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What if they want to sell crafts and charms in the style of their people. Perhaps in some kind of convenience store. Then they're going to go ahead and do that, too, and nobody will stop them. What are you guys even talking about at this point? you've somehow managed to convince yourselves that the Lakota nation wanting to preserve its culture is the same thing as the white supremacist creed, and now you're obsessing about Lakota breaking links with their own culture--something that happens all the time. Now you've made it weirder because they don't want to actually keep the traditions alive but they do want to 'sell crafts and charms in the style of their people'. You previously erected an enormous, flatulent strawman that someone, anyone, thought a wall should be built around the reservations. Maybe dial down the hyperbole from the current setting of 11 to like a 2 or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then they're going to go ahead and do that, too, and nobody will stop them. Yes god forbid we have wrong-thinking humor when discussing such a serious topic with serious people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then they're going to go ahead and do that, too, and nobody will stop them. In actual fact the Lakota seemed to think they could be stopped and symbolicly declared war. Turns out they were wrong about that. A lesson we can all draw on. Posters ITT have even drawn attention to it, labeling it problematic and something right-thinking people might oppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:11
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yes god forbid we have wrong-thinking humor when discussing such a serious topic with serious people. Here's a good joke- I'm going to tear off your arm and shove it up your rear end.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
People around the world appropriate American culture all the time. Look at a group of Chinese youth and you'll see the appropriation of black American hip-hop culture that is a result of black urban culture tailored by rich white people. Nobody seems to mind this (because it's not white people doing the appropriation, therefore it's okay). Furthermore appropriation in the case of Native American culture appropriated by white Americans is essentially "to the victor go the spoils" except we just pick out the good parts such as their fashion, while leaving their poverty and alcoholism alone. I don't see anything wrong with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Maybe dial down the hyperbole from the current setting of 11 to like a 2 or something? Absolutely not, wilful and gross misrepresentation of the opponents' viewpoints is a rich tradition with a storied history in this here Best Topic on DnD. What are you looking for here mister, level-headed and nuanced discussion??
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Here's a good joke- I'm going to tear off your arm and shove it up your rear end. I see you have acquired yet another red text, but with the old avatar. Unimpressive, most unimpressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yes god forbid we have wrong-thinking humor when discussing such a serious topic with serious people. Wrong-thinking humor? What are you talking about? It's just impossible to tell, in this vale of strawmen, what your actual position is. wateroverfire posted:In actual fact the Lakota seemed to think they could be stopped and symbolicly declared war. Turns out they were wrong about that. A lesson we can all draw on. I really have no clue what point you're trying to make. Do you even know?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:48
|
|