Cultural Appropriation

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Cultural Appropriation

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

# ¿ Mar 24, 2015 19:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 02:27

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Space Gopher posted:

Sure there is. Go ahead and try to put your own spin on Star Wars, Mickey Mouse, or the Coca-Cola logo out there, for your own profit. See how far you get before the lawyers slap you down.

A lot of what people complain about under the umbrella of "cultural appropriation" is commercial designers who translate "traditional" to "royalty-free recognizable images" in their heads, and then do a pretty good re-enactment of the whole "well if you savages wanted to keep your rights to this [intellectual] property you should have protected it according to our rules" dance that has a wee bit of historical precedent in loving people over.

Pouring one out for all the cosplayers arrested by the IP police.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 16:55

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

paranoid randroid posted:

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.

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?

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 21:00

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

paranoid randroid posted:

Where on earth are you getting "special favors" from? Are you suggesting that there is, in fact, a constitutional right to exclusivity of expression?

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.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 21:07

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

paranoid randroid posted:

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.

And that section of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional.

The government is, unfortunately, not obligated to give out a basic income. Are they allowed to give one to everyone who doesn't criticize the government?

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 21:13

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

paranoid randroid posted:

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.

The government is required to not enforce trademarks in an unconstitutionally discriminatory manner. It's not that I give a poo poo about trademark here, it's that it's an area where you can't trust the government to be able to get the decisions "right". See also The Slants case that I posted earlier.

Sadly no.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 21:34

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

paranoid randroid posted:

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?

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.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 21:45

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Let us English posted:

Had work to do, didn't have time for a full reply.

Kanji tattoos are dumb because they're tacky and look like poo poo. Most people who get them simply pull out a dictionary and find the first entry for "strength" or whatever, but it never translates right. I used to work at a summer camp where we'd go to the local pool. An ex-marine counselor from another camp would always bet there and you could see he had 兄弟 on his back. I assume he wanted it to say "brotherhood" but he just got the word "siblings" instead. These tattoos are dumb but they're no more offensive than the ways people adorn their bodies with English clothing in East Asia.

As dumb as it is, it doesn't take away from anyone else's cultural experience. When people rush to call such tattoos racist, the inevitably turn a simple writing system into mystical and mysterious runes of power, thus engaging in the very Orientalism they came to decry. This outrage is made worse by the fact that's almost always 100% ignorant of how English is commodified on a much grander scale in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China. The use of English in East Asia is not racist or problematic, but it's pretty stupid, just like Kanji tattoos.

Pretty much. Asian shirts:

# ¿ Mar 30, 2015 04:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Cultural Appropriation

Space Gopher posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

paranoid randroid posted:

paranoid randroid posted:

paranoid randroid posted:

paranoid randroid posted:

paranoid randroid posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Let us English posted: