|
Periodiko posted:I don't really see how I'm reacting to an imaginary argument, there seems to be a genuine argument that appropriating from a culture in a "shallow" way is disrespectful and wrong. There clearly exists an interpretation where Madonna did some kind of harm to the black/latino gay community by appropriating voguing, for example. Well the complaint against Gwen Stefani is, I'd imagine, that she declared herself a Harajuku Girl and hired a brace of Japanese women to follow her around and never speak english. Which admittedly might just be garden variety racism, but the CA angle is something to the effect of "please don't treat other cultures like pokemon to be collected for your own amusement."
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:How dare you erase the aids and malaria you unbelievable shitlord. wow, Tuberculosis-Exclusionary Radical Feminist spotted...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
fspades posted:I don't hate leftists, I'm a leftist. I hate what passes as leftism over there and their silly blogs and campus communities. The global warming example (and it is just an example) was given to show you how far you people are up on your own asses, and how little motivation you have to actually change something. Be true to yourselves; who are you trying to discipline when you complain about cultural appropriation? Well yes, to be perfectly fair, you could look at the situation in a way where CA falls under impotent consumer activism. Individual choices about wearing a sari or a keffiyeh have little to no effect on the subsuming of those things into the great western monoculture. Which is what I feel arguments about CA are really striking at - reaction against the perceived commodification of cultures and people. But if you remove the airing of grievances at the personal level, what are you left with to cope?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Motto posted:What's the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural diffusion? Conspicuous consumption
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Attention world: everything you have done is for me to use. If I want to do burnouts in a three-wheeled Korean lorry covered in eagle feathers, then jump out and play a sitar, will I not? Watch me. Well if nothing else, you got yourself some material for a completely sick music video.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Can Western culture be appropriated? If you can find a bit that hasn't been commodified already, sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To object to the participation in and modification of something by others, is to feel possessive of it. Culture very, very definitely to my mind is a one way thing. You can identify as part of one, be affected by one, but you can't claim creative control over one, not meaningfully anyway. Why on earth not? Culture doesn't just happen irrespective of people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Culture is the net expression of a lot of people's ideas and thoughts, as you introduce more people, the net expression changes as a result. The only way you can avoid that is by being completely isolationist? And even then, that also changes the culture because now isolationism is a component of it. I think the major difference between what people call CA and cultural exchange & mutation is that CA is taking place in the context of the modern commodification of everything. People arguing against CA are reacting to what they perceive as having bits and pieces of what makes them them hoovered up and turned into cute little accouterments to be sold at a premium. In cultural exchange there's usually some kind of interplay between peoples, even if it's not necessarily a net positive for one or both sides. CA is viewed as one way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Bob James posted:If anyone wants to appropriate and destroy my Baptist heritage feel free. I'm gonna make snake-handling and tongues-speaking the new hotness in greenwich village this fall and you ain't gonna get poo poo out of it. l8r, rube.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
IDK if those things I said are even Baptist things. Baptists are like the generic store brand of Protestantism in my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"You kids! What did I tell you about baptizing each other in my rain barrel! Get out of h- no! No, don't you dare hold a convention to establish the truth of biblical literalism! Don't you dare split, I don't need two of you little shits running around! Don't you DARE advocate salvation through grace on my lawn! I know your father!" Is this a Scofield Bible I found under your bed? Look at me. Who gave this to you? Was it Nathan? It was Nathan wasn't it? I've seen him hanging around on the corner, cross referencing Elijah with Revelation. You know what happens to kids like that? They gain 200 pounds, marry a woman who's 75% bouffant, and get a cable access show at two in the morning. You want to end up married to someone name Lurlene-Marie? Huh?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:I mean, it's apparently a "thing" in the USA, as almost a third of the population has literally "stopped looking for work", even though there are plenty of jobs that need to be done. Maybe that explains why so many jobs are outsourced; perhaps too many Americans think they are "too good" for IT jobs, or something. Haha, oh wow
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
I do not believe that a singular, overarching "culture of humanity" is possible or even desirable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't understand how you define culture such that there isn't by definition a culture of humanity. All cultures can be arbitrarily subdivided. Well I suppose that there are certain mores that can be generalized across all cultures, and as such form the barest skeleton of a general human culture. But this is hardly the basis of a strong, binding culture. It'd be like expecting people to share an identity based on having a nose, or thumbs. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Bourgeois appropriation of working class culture is no less valid a form of appropriation than one based on ethnicity. See, for a particularly obnoxious example, Mumford and Sons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:You should check out Kendrick Lamar's new album. Yes it is one album, I know. But Kendrick Lamar is one of the top dogs in the rap industry at the moment. It's a good album but oh my god the thinkpieces it inspired are embarrassing. You'd think that music journalists had never heard social critique before.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I agree, I especially hate how people have interpreted "The Blacker The Berry". I think Kendrick was a little confused when he wrote the ending to that song. "How do we approach the Overwhelming Blackness of To Pimp a Butterfly?" iunno, bub, have you considered listening to it with your ear-holes. I find that usually works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
But how are you approaching the Overwhelming Gayness of this Earth??
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:If a goy goes to a deli and orders a pastrami on rye he's basically recapitulating the Holocaust, is something we can definitely all agree on. Unless of course he's also buying a potato knish in remembrance for the victims of the Shoah, in which case he is a second Oskar Schindler. Serious question: have you ever made a post that wasn't some kind of snippy imitation of arguments occurring only in your head?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Because cultural appropriation still seems like a bizarre concept to get upset about. Not really. It's just another means of reacting against the alienating nature of modernity. Some people buy into, others don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Slur or not, I'm still not going to be upset nor crusade to change it. I guess people just can't handle others freedom of speech. I think, if you're going to exercise your freedom of speech to name a team after a racial slur, it's entirely within the realm of reasonability for others to exercise their freedom of speech to criticize you for it. Also that sounds like a sick Halloween costume. Post pics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Well if changing the name is done as a voluntary act in response to public outcry I would not call that censorship. I feel it's fairly bizarre to consider criticism and agitation from private citizens comparable to mandates from a central authority.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Well then nullify their dang trademark status and let the Great Bootlegging begin. Market-based solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
While I understand that there's a risk involved in letting speech be subject to standards of acceptability, I am at the same time unconvinced that its worth my time to stand with a bunch of rich men who don't want to change their team name to something other than the first nations equivalent of the Washington Kikes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:While the trivial response is to dismiss it as just some rich white dudes getting criticized for being racist, I've never heard of the supreme court being that concerned with that topic before which implies that there is a significant effort behind it. So obviously it's not "just" some criticism and it's obvious that whoever is behind this case isn't satisfied with just criticism either. I don't think its necessary to start positing that there's a secretive cabal interested in instigating a chilling effect on speech when it's probably just Roberts thinking to himself that he could write a wikked sick opinion about corporate personhood using this case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Considering the Redskins were formed in the 30s, when you probably could have named a team the Boston Thieving Wops and people would only be offended about being compared to Italians, I don't think the trademark was granted to anybody's chagrin. And yes I suppose the team is being coerced - specifically into compliance with the law. Honestly I find the punk band case linked up thread more compelling. But thats just because I am an extremely biased person and am more sympathetic to a bunch of guys with guitars challenging the law to make a rhetorical point than I am to a corporation challenging the law to maintain their ~*brand identity*~
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
 THE LAAAAAW Specifically the law barring trademarks that bring people into contempt or disrepute, or are disparaging. Which the patent office decided the Redskins name was in violation of after complaint from the Native American community.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
What kind of chilling effect can we expect to take place, should this decision be upheld? Also, considering that trademarks are issued at the discretion of the federal government and do not represent expression so much as the legal protection of expression against infringement by competitors, does the patent office really have an obligation to sign off on any drat fool thing that crosses their desk in the name of Free Speech?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Well sort of. You can trademark phrases, for example "I'm lovin' it." While one could make the argument that "I'm lovin' it" is deceptive inasmuch as it's questionable that anyone has ever truly "loved" their experience at McDonalds, I don't think it violates the Lanham act. The issue I feel is that suggesting that trademarks fall under free speech also suggests that not only does one possess the right to freedom of expression, one also possess the right to exclusivity of expression. Which is such a troubling reading that I would be completely unsurprised to see it come out of the Roberts court.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No it doesn't, it implies the government can't give out favors with unconstitutional conditions. What if trademarks were refused to, say, D donors? Where on earth are you getting "special favors" from? Are you suggesting that there is, in fact, a constitutional right to exclusivity of expression?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No there isn't, that's the point. The government isn't obligated to issue trademarks, but that doesn't mean they can be handed out in a discriminatory manner. It's only discriminatory to the extent it was evaluated, in light of complaints from the Native American community, and found to be in violation of the Lanham Act's provisions concerning denigration. You make it sound as if the patent board yanked the trademark because they root for the Cowboys.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
And why is it unconstitutional to not provide legal protection against imitation and infringement for trademarks that are deceptive or derogatory? This is a serious question because it sounds to me that you're suggesting the government is required, by the Bill of Rights no less, to enforce exclusivity of speech. Do I have the right to trademark the phrase God Hates Fags and then issue a C/D to the Westboro Bapist Church? Because if I do, uh, seriously let's get something going here im serious as a heart attack. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
You keep saying it's discriminatory but I honestly am not seeing discrimination against anything except people who violate existing laws. Is it discriminatory for the EPA to fine a factory for dumping waste products into a lake? Again, are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional to not enforce deceptive or derogatory trademarks?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I pass a law where everyone gets a $20k stipend per year. However, the stipend is forfeited if you publicly criticize the government. Enforcing that is following the law, but unconstitutionally discriminatory. Except that law is blatantly targeted at a group of people: dissidents. Saying that "people who might potentially at some point in the future register an offensive or deceptive trademark" constitutes an equivalent group is ridiculous. You might as well say that speeding tickets are discriminatory. You don't have the right to drive in excess of the speed limit, nor do you have the right to exclusivity of speech. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:59
|
|