|
The other day I saw american-style ketchup in the grocery store and, on behalf of my gringo SJW bretheren, I was offended. Thanks Cultural Appropriation thread. Seriouspost: What culture isn't a hodge-podge of appropriated elements and made up traditions accumulated over the years? Like that's literally what culture is. Your hallowed tradition was someone else's appropriation, or just a lark from back in the day. Hell it might have been thoroughly commercial at its inception and thus, I guess, not authentic at all.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No that's pretty much it. If you're in here concern trolling about CA, you're most likely trying to make yourself feel better about being racist or lovely in some fashion. Hypothetically is putting a slave collar on your black girlfriend and beating her for pleasure appropriation of antebellum southern culture or current north african culture? Feel like you'd have a unique perspective on this question tia. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:13
|
|
" poo poo.
|
Crowsbeak posted:You should have smashed it, you're not concerned about cultural imperialism enough comrade. Really the only time I am concerned about is if you are appropriating the culture of a people you genocided. (See the Redskins) Well if you genocided them it's sort of cultural preservation isn't it? Makes you think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So you have an account on the pedophile stalker offsite? Why would I need one? It's been kicking around SA a long time and for awhile he was pretty sensitive about it, though he seems to be trying to put it behind him by refusing to acknowledge that everything which happened, you know, happened.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You realize, even if you were 100% correct, which you're not, it would be explicitly what that person asked me to do, because that's what role play is about. If hypothetically I were not 100% correct and you tended to flip out about this as a form of forum RP, was it any less racist or generally messed up because she asked you to do it? IMO jury is out. I mean, we're all unconsciously racist right so
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:This is unfathomably pathetic Also where the thread recovered from its crap rating. Makes you think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:LOL I already admit that I can be racist, like anyone, are you thinking that you can trap me in a racism that my arguments poof in a puff of logic? I don't think you're a hardcore racist. I just think you're insuferably self-righteous about racism in a way that makes some things that happened here in the past both funny and relevant. If people want to talk about cultural appropriation instead of that though I'm cool with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You are a godawful poster who makes really stupid and bad posts LOL look at the pot calling the kettle black. Culturally appropriating all your metaphores.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It's funny because some folks who got really mad about getting called out on their racism have been trying to make hay out of my personal life for years. People who find you absolutely insuferable have thought the same thing was funny for a long time, and I agree with them. That said, it's not that funny and if you hadn't posted a lot of words denying it we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread anymore. If you want to go be defensive over in the chat thread go ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The underside of "all cultural interactions are appropriation", beyond the overside where people declare that Lakota culture must be destroyed, is interesting in and of itself. It comes, and you can see people admitting this directly earlier in the thread, of the belief that taxonomy and analysis and all the poo poo where you think about something is bad. Simply awful. Action, without thought, is what is necessary. Thus, the "leftists" and "liberals" that reject it so completely. Cultural soverignty is a ridiculous idea, though. Cultures are amorphous and the same person will touch dozens or hundreds of distinct cultures, that they share in common with a constantly shifting and sometimes overlapping mass of people. There's no one to even arbitrate the boundries let alone credibly direct where, culturally-speaking, people can experiment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You asked me for my insight, I already asked you to take it to another thread, now that you are getting made fun of for bringing it up you want me to drop it? IDK dude. In your own interest it seems like you'd want to drop the talk about your personal life, given how sensitive you've been about it in the past. But if you want to keep at it maybe the mods will approve Zeitgeistchat for a little bit and you can awkwardly try to explain yourself again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so in other words, there is nothing wrong with religious oppression. Religious oppression presumably includes acts of actual oppression so idk those things seem different.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're the one saying that there is no such thing as sovereignty for a culture, so how could it be oppressive if you decide their religion for them? You're equivocating between the definition of "culture" as "a group of people related by x y and z" and "culture" as something like "a collection of practices, icons, memes, w/e".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'm not the one who brought my personal life up, if you want to try and keep screaming "look how defensive he is" after this latest attempt bombed, I guess if it makes you feel better you can have that. You're being defensive now hth. If you want to stop talking about it stop talking about it. If you want to keep talking about it stop talking about talking about it and just talk about it. Why do you feel the need to have the last word?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I think you're at the point where thinking solely in individual terms breaks down, haha. Dude what does that even mean?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You said that there's no such thing as sovereignty for a culture, because it's not strictly defined, but you're unable to explain why it's not OK to impose things on that culture, saying that there's a difference between the people and the practices as though that was relevant to the question of whether it's OK to criminalize Santeria or the Native American Church. Holy poo poo dude. There is a difference between "a culture" in reference to, say, a group of people who share something like ethnicity and religion, and "a culture" in reference to the nebulous cloud of beliefs, rituals, foods, clothing, etc we might talk about as their culture even though it's an amorphous thing that's very hard to define. Of course there's a problem with oppressing THE PEOPLE by idk burning their temples down or whatever. But that's not the meaning we're talking about when we talk about cultural appropriation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:As for James Franco, well, I'd say the role of gay people in contributing to the fashions and tastes that are overall an aspect of the wider culture is a bit more complicated. For a counterexample, consider the criticism that Madonna gets for vogue: copying a style from the underground gay scene and profiting from repackaging and selling it to a middle America that is willing to buy it only when it's sold by a straight woman. The people who created are shoved aside, because to America they are worthless, but America is perfectly willing to enjoy what they created as long as they can feel that their money and attention are going to someone "worthy". Madonna was already a star with a large fan base when Vogue hit, and it was both a good song and a good video. Were there artists who were authentic to the gay underground who had that breakout potential or were even trying for it? If she had come from that scene would she be criticized as a sell out who appropriated her own sub-culture? What if she were gay but not part of the underground scene?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:1980's America would have rejected an openly gay performer regardless of how good his art was because filthy homos. IDK. Elton John, Boy George, both were out during the 80's and had big success. Freddy Mercury. There were others, too. Not saying that prejudice wasn't a thing, of course. Also Vogue dropped in 1990.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Both of whom became famous first. You asked why openly gay men didn't make vogue popular, as if the creators of an art just weren't as good as an imitator somehow. What I'm trying to say is there's a lot more to making something popular than performing it in an underground scene. It's not a question of being "as good" or not. An artist has to promote, market, have a sound and an act that appeals to a mass audience, etc. Part of that might have been race or sexual identity, sure, ok. But not having mass appeal is a feature that applies to a ton of underground culture in whatever context today, and elements of those sub cultures going mainstream is something some participants will always bitch about because it's not "authentic", because "we did it first", or w/e. When in fact they weren't interested in going mainstream in the first place or didn't have what it took to break out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What's the thrust of your argument. Because right now it sounds like "well yeah sure, some runners had their ankles chained together for the race, but there's a lot more to winning a race than not being chained, maybe all the unchained straight white people were just better runners anyway" I think here's where I disagree with you. If someone took a specific work of another artist, minority or not, and resold as their own creation, then that's a problem. If someone was inspired by a sound or look or etc and rolled that into their own work without copying a specific expression that's literally how art works and being butthurt about it seems inappropriate. There's also a lot of really bad history being thrown around about things like the origin of rock and roll, which had roots in both predominantly african american music styles and in country. There were mixed acts. There were A.A. acts that were popular with white audiences. There was a british scene. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The main problem is how the industry chooses to promote or ignore certain artists, which is also dependent of characteristics such as race, though. It's not only about what people like, because they can only like what's presented to them in the first place. If black music is obscure, but there is plenty of well-known and advertised white artists who play nearly exactly the same thing, there is no reason to think they all succeeded or failed according to their skills or likability. The artists who were passed over just to see other people getting multi-million dollar contracts for derived work have every right to feel deceived. There are tons of successful black artists what are you talking about. There were successful black artists playing Rock and Roll. There were white and black influences that fed into the genre and literally everyone playing was drawing on prior work as an influence. There are also tons of artists of all ethnicities who never get picked up and promoted by a label despite being likeable and talented. Only a tiny minority of acts get that kind of support. The music biz has been like that since there was a music biz. I suppose less successful musicians have been butthurt about that since there was a music biz, too, but so what?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The music biz promotes what it considers marketable. It's far from being a meritocracy. In what sense could the music biz ever be a meritocracy? edit: Or maybe a different question is more appropriate. What do you mean by a meritocracy? Is it an industry that promotes the artists who make the best work, however best is defined? Or one that supports artists to varying degrees depending on the quality of that work? Or something else? edit2: Or are you saying that many acts that aren't popular could be popular if only they were promoted, and because they aren't the business is not a meritocracy? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:My point was that promotion is at least as much important as talent and quality of work and is pretty much a prerequisite to get multi-million dollar contracts. For sure. These days bands usually aren't signed until they've done the promotional work of building up a fan base. Accomplishing that is one thing that separates the pros from the rest. What should we take from that? Toph Bei Fong posted:A business exists to make money (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919)). Therefore, an artist who makes the most money, ROI-wise, for the company is the best artist. I guess that would be one way to look at it, sure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You heard it first here guys. Drinking water is sometimes problematic. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Makes you think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
To be honest I find the food at PFChang's to be pretty tasty and am not concerned that it's different from chinese food as served in China, which in some cases I also found tasty. How deep a sin am I committing by eating at PFChang's? Help me, CA thread. Effectronica are you aware that lovely family owned chinese restaurants, though owned by actual chiense people, are almost always not in fact serving food as it was prepared in their motherland? Something to consider. Additionally, I had authentic microwave waffles in a restaurant in Shenzhen once. They were just ok. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:Should then a white woman not wear a sari (or perform any other kind of cultural exchange) until she solves the social injustice that prevents the Indian lady for bringing it to her office? And would the social stigma be more easily done away with if we ban anybody but Indian women from wearing Indian clothes? Wouldn't a white woman wearing a sari to her office also be considered unprofessional, or am I missing something?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But pissing on native cultures to make a buck is the most conservative American thing there is! It's as American as apple pie and plump rosy-cheeked blue-eyed Jesus! Who speaks for a culture or people, though? Some people getting offended over CA are literally Effectronica. Some people are Really Mad but for their own reasons (insecurity about their own cultural identity, etc). Some people thing things labeled CA are great. Most people don't care. Which of those is the voice we're supposed to listen to? Which is the one that owns the culture that has supposedly been appropriated and can speak for it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:they are going to get pregnant any time now and require maternity leave. As a complicating factor, this and other things which are on their face sexist, like the idea that the woman sitting in front of you interviewing is more likely to take time off from work to care for family or get pregnant or etc, are true sometimes and those are things that will negatively impact a business. It's not fair to the women who want to be career focused instead of famiy focused but you can't exactly demand to see proof of their intentions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what you are saying is, while appearing similar from a superficial glance, in one instance the act is a harmless one done for innocent reasons that doesn't perpetuate negative stereotypes or cause any harm, and in the other case it's done from indifference or malice and actively harms or offends women for no conceivable benefit. This seems like a good heuristic to me. Well done. In the other case it's not indifference or malice either, though. It's something like "I should make this gesture because that's what a gentleman does." not "lol little gurrl can't open a door". The tradgedy of leftism is turning everything into an outrage. Come to Chile and you'll get all sorts of dirty looks if you don't hold a door open or give a lady your seat on the bus. edit: From the lady, to be clear. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's not a complicating factor at all. Why would you assume that a woman would take time off to care for family, but not a man? Eh? Because at least in this culture, and probably still in the States as well, it's more likely.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
VideoGames posted:statistically 100% of women are more likely to give birth than men hosed up if true.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'd love to pay you as much as a woman, but to be honest there's no telling when you'll gently caress off to have prostate cancer treated. An argument that has never worked (for me).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What other assumptions can we make about job applicants based on their demographics, and therefore pay them less? Lay it on us. What we really need is a theory of gender equity that allows me to pay both men and women less.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's not so complicating, because it's just taking one of many factors that can make someone temporary unable to work. Men won't get pregnant, but are statistically more likely to get prostate cancer, or get beaten up on the street to the point of needing hospitalization. None of these risks is considered a good reason to potentially lower someone's pension, isn't it? I mean...there are risks and risks, and prostate cancer or getting beaten by thugs are way less likely than family leave and absenteeism to be things that gently caress up your schedule or leave your clients hanging or leave a vacancy in your team that you can't fill BY LAW while your new hire is out for a year (more relevant to Chile than U.S.). There really isn't a comparable risk with men. Some things are just culturally different (not biologically different - in 30 years men might be more likely to stay home with the kids while well-educated women go slay it in the workforce) between the sexes and that's a reality that's going to get recognized and factored in even if it's taboo to talk about. Gantolandon posted:Besides, having children is good for the society overall and penalizing women for getting pregnant is a recipe for excerpting the problem of aging society. IDK, maybe. Not really a problem we have down here or something I see as my problem to address.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wearing a plastic feather headdress to a football game, ehhhhh not so much. That does far more to contribute to negative stereotypes about football fans than native americans, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well when football fans complain about Native Americans making them look bad by associating their traditional team-supporting culture with weird native superstitions, I promise to at least consider what they have to say. Theoretically there might be a level of irony so high it causes the collective unconscious to implode and leave us all in a naive state of animal innocence. I think this might be on the other side of that horizon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right you can't just lump everything together on superficial similarities, you look at the intentions and effects. There's no ill intent, there are no bad effects so it's fine. This is the standard we apply to lots of things, and it's the one that I am applying here. If I could pay a man less because he might theoretically decide to gender switch and roleplay pregnancy I would do that in the name of equality. #Progressive #EqualPay
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 15:04
|
|
Hmm, Gantolandon I suppose now I get to tell you that you can't just disclaim wateroverfire and No True Scotsman him because hmmm hmmm you can't deny that he's on your side about CA and is saying some crazy poo poo that discredits your position 
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought you would appreciate it I genuinely appreciate you. =)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think you'd have to pay most men extra if you want them to roleplay this fetish What if the RP were required and I paid less to those who opted out? And also paid participants less because pregnancy? Gender pay gap solved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Since you're not requiring women to roleplay, can women get a raise if they have a hysterectomy or show proof of menopause? If they display their bronzed uteri as desk ornaments I will consider it. Then pay them less because not as assertive in pay negotiations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 15:25
|
|