|
Agreed, we should keep Whites and PoC separated. We need to name and shame these race-mixers and ensure their respective cultures remain pure. By the way I'm a liberal.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
I guess this is the part where we start debating what a "real" culture is, and why doing X isn't appropriation, but doing Y is. So for example, since I hate nerds, obviously you can't appropriate "Gamer Culture", but I do have crippling White Guilt, so wearing dreadlocks (unless you are black enough) are right out. I enjoy Sushi, so I'm allowed to eat it, but I'm too fat to surf, so obviously surfing is appropriation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Well here we have an example of someone trying and failing to appropriate Good Posting culture, so there are examples all around us if you know where to look. I'm very respectful to all cultures and I go out of my way not to intrude. Unfortunately a little cognitive dissonance is the price I pay.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
I am against cultural appropriation because we must secure the existence of our people and a future for fspades posted:No it isn't. You know what is a real problem that will affect the lives of "PoC" tremendously and which Americans can do something about it? Global warming. Also as stupid as worrying about Cultural Appropriation is, the "everything sucks" approach is probably the least compelling. It's like constantly pointing to Inner City Chicago whenever discussing bullying in school, or the militarization of the police.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:One problem with wearing dreadslocks is that for white people, they are being rebellious, so lots of white people wearing them gets it labeled as rebellious and "unprofessional" and honestly they look terrible on white people so when actual black women wear them because that is how their hair is, they get pointed to a policy that ethnic styles are unprofessional Yes I'm sure if white people would just stop appropriating dreadlocks racism would disappear. There is nothing wrong with dreadlocks even if you don't "pass" the paper bag test. There is something wrong with most corporate dress codes being exclusionary since the professional ideal is absolutely racially bias but that is a separate, not to mention actually an important, issue from whining about white people dressing up for Halloween.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Here is an example of it going in the other direction Actually I don't. Perhaps you should reflect why you find it a problem. And please don't give me a history lesson about the Nazis. Examine your thought process and actually think about why you have a problem with other people dressing up when they obviously don't follow the ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Eh there is an argument that normalizing the status quo and reinforcing negative stereotypes is a problem. But calling it appropriation of "
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yes, a white girl from Australia who is even clueless about the racism in her home country and how it relates to Aboriginal housing, comes to the United States, adopts rap music as her platform, then proceeds to poo poo on minorities using a myriad of stereotypes while making money off a "hood" persona. I'm absolutely not defending Azalea, I don't really know enough to critique specific examples of hers, I'll agree with whatever position you have on her. But accusing her of "hood culture" appropriation seems a bit hypocritical especially considering the justified backlash against people criticizing "hood," "black", or "ghetto" culture right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's possible for people to mimic a false stereotype so long as it has cultural relevance. You can also dress like Santa Claus incorrectly. Sure, I've had a girlfriend who has dressed as slutty santa-clause which is absolutely a cultural appropriation of Santa Clause, but so? It doesn't affect poo poo. You can criticize rape culture, or whatever, but cultural appropriation seems like a distraction to excuse you slut-shaming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Im not sure you understand, and suspect you may simply be looking for an excuse to whine. I don't think I'm the one whining about a concept that I'm not even convinced exists. If anything, the people upset that I listen to eminem and have had a black girlfriend in the past are looking for something else to whine about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Oh, you were my freshman roommate? Small fuckin' world. I'm pretty sure I wasn't your freshman roommate unless you were a frat-boy "appropriator" with an asian girl-friend. Perhaps it says something that my experience isn't all that unusual and that you are probably "incorrect" to assume there is something wrong with something that no one else seems to have a problem with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
It's about Respect and keeping the racial bloodlines pure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
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. With the first example, there were a few pretty humorous examples of Mickey Mouse being used by various anti-american groups in the middle east they seem to be fine since they don't respect american copyright, there isn't really a problem.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers For the second case I agree, in the current system that is obviously appropriation, I assume you are referring to the Bass Pro Shop "native american" design thing which just took a traditional designs, copyrighted them and sold them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Extermination of religion should be equitable. I'll consider your post when Christianity is considered as contemptible as belief in katsinas. What if the native children decide that religion is a crutch for the weak minded after reading some Dawkins and therefore view Christianity in contempt as well as their crazy Grand Pa's animal spirits. Is that ok, or would they be appropriating your culture?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so we've got both of you under "bitter New Atheist", would you like to provide any more identifying information? "Minimal cultural imposition," I'm sure this is a rigorously defined position that no one could possibly disagree with unless they are "bitter" or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I realize that someone who views the world through the lens of a cheesy sci-fi movie from 1999 might not understand this, but rigid definitions are pretty easy to break and fall apart, and then you've got people like you cheering at the extermination of Santeria because there's one fewer religion. In this case I'm using rigorous as an adjective meaning "thorough." I realize that definitions of words are difficult (and sometimes they change meanings wtf?), but they are one of the fundamental aspects of communication. I'm also not sure why me being aware of dawkins somehow makes me an atheist who lusts for religious death. But back to your claim that you simply want people to define themselves with "Minimal cultural imposition." What amount of imposition is permissible for you? Is a paper bag test required to play or enjoy jazz music? How do you know what cultural cues you are "allowed" to define yourself with?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, it's quite simple. Take this hammer, and repeatedly hit your right hand with it until all the bones are broken. Through the pain, you should understand. If not, please find someone to assist you in doing this to your left hand. Perhaps we could use the bludgeon you've fashioned and called Cultural Appropriation to do the deed so that we don't appropriate the middle eastern carpenters tool?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Look, you're convinced that there's a conspiracy afoot to prevent you from listening to Miles Davis, and I sure as hell can't convince you otherwise rationally, so... Nah, I'm not beholden to other people doing things I don't like, so I listen to miles davis and led zeppelin with a clear and free conscience. Some people apparently have a problem with it, and so I'm trying to figure out why.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Who are these people. Name them. The people who are concerned with cultural appropriation. You and the OP for example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Knowing and acknowledging Led Zepplin's artistic influences and being aware of the likelihood that When The Levee Breaks is a hit song because this R&B song was performed by white people, and enjoying said music don't have to be mutually exclusive. quote:Perhaps to avoid introspection and other intellectually rigorous tasks? Reality is extremely complex. I am petty sure Plant and Paige weren't meeting at a shadowy altar planning to get famous off of the musical experimentation of a disadvantaged group, and the people who perused Led Zepplin probably weren't doing so to stick a middle finger at black R&B musicians for not being born white. Zep made music they like and the fans listened to music they like. The problem isn't Zep's success, but examining the societal factors that may have been at play in making these lily-white Brits financially successful at performing a musical style that had previously been performed by financially-hindered black people. Perhaps they were just the first to bring it to the mainstream, though back then I imagine it was because of overt racism specifically excluding many of the artists of the R&B scene. If you want to call that cultural appropriation I probably won't even disagree with you. quote:The problem isn't that you like these things, the problem is that, when asked to question if these things are bad, you lose your loving mind. quote:Jesus Christ man. Reality is extremely complex. What does "Chinese food" even mean to a person like me, from Kentucky? It's a large geographic region that has had numerous societal shifts and realignments over history. And here I am dipping an egg roll in sweet and sour sauce and cracking open a fortune cookie. How much of that is just based on misconception of what a Chinese meal would entail, and how much is based on advertising designed to hit the appeal to the exotic? quote:Your response to the question is to call me a Nazi. That's the problem. You aren't even willing to entertain this question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:I can't help but think you're just defining cultural appropriation as a kind of minor faux pas, and if so I guess complaining about that sort of piddly poo poo is what the internet is about, but it seems like the claims getting made about it are grander than that. What's the worst case scenario here? How much damage can cultural appropriation do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Suu84khNGY
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Agreedo, but poor taste without consequences isn't something worth getting upset about. Aau Contraire I'd say that getting upset is the entire raison d'être for caring about what other people do/say/wear/listen to, especially on the internet. Outrage Culture is real. 7c Nickel posted:It's their anger. You don't get to be the arbiter for whether other folk's feelings are legitimate. Exactly. The most important thing is that they are angry, and I need to join them in their anger. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7tupJRSi7M Why do you think she was putting on that obvious and rehearsed act? Why do you think the two dudes were getting so upset? Do you think they really feel that strongly about Israel?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The common term for people with no regard for others is 'jackass', so surely you understand why nobody cares when you scream about reverse racism or being oppressed yourself, right? Like if hurt feelings is not a consideration that should be made, how could you argue against a law renaming the Redskins because of your own hurt feelings? I'd argue that renaming a sports team has no place in Law and is patently unconstitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I am surprised nobody has mentioned Apache helicopters are cultural appropriation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
So ultimately does the spectre of cultural appropriation boil down to some people get upset at other people? Because there are people in america that are still upset at others smoking and I don't give a poo poo about them, so why should I give a poo poo about the Washington Redskins?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Redskin is a legit slur, though, versus a white guy with dreadlocks. 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. Anyway, next Halloween I'm going to dress up as Guan Yu (關帝), no yellow face though because if Jesus can be White, so can Emperor Guan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Where does criticism becomes censorship? Since that is a fuzzy line, I like to ensure I'm as far away from censorship as possible. If that means people are offended, so be it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted: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. Agreed. If the owner of the redskins changed that name I'm not going to cry censorship. But people earlier were implying that since the owner is obviously not going to change the name, maybe congress should step in, that seems pretty comparable to a mandate from a central authority to me. Same with the weaselly political methods of reclassifying speech you disagree with as "hate speech" and thus not subject to 1st amendment protections, or perhaps fining organization that espouse views you find distasteful?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:'redskins' is actually a slur though, which are and have been regulated No? Why does my opposition to the government censoring bad words mean I am against the government doing anything? That's a bizarre leap.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Some of the people on the correct side of the issue have views I do not endorse. That means I will throw away the entire issue, and in fact fully participate in actions I know to be wrong. What a thrill it is to be racist!" I assume you aren't familiar with Guan Yu? Because only people who aren't familiar with him would ascribe racism to dressing up like him, which was exactly the point I was making by specifically choosing him to dress up as, even going so far as to explicitly exclude "yellow-face" which would be racist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you're bizarrely leaping from disapproval directly to censorship and in my experience, people who are overly concerned with their bad conduct being censored are paranoid about government as an extension of society exposing them as the wretched hateful people they truly are Where does the "without criticism" part come from? Has anyone ever said that they believe the first amendment protects them from criticism?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Did that other guy, who was not me, ever say that the first amendment meant you couldn't call him a racist?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont remember. anyway, Oh. And here I thought that you were just misrepresenting his position, painting him as a racist caricature with inconsistent opinions and then applying those characteristics to me. Silly me, I guess I was just getting too hysterical. quote:what do you think the government would do? ban the use of the word redskins? if so, isn't that a little extreme? I absolutely think if the government banned the word "redskin" it would be just "a little" extreme. Do I think government policy would be shifted to specifically targeting that word? No. Like I said I don't really care about the Redskins (except when they play the Cowboys). What I do care about though is the potential chilling effect that a supreme court decision would have on the "acceptability" of language. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted: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. Perhaps. But I'm not talking about a secret conspiracy or shadowy cabal or whatever. Since this is still the United States, and it's not a secret trial, the plaintiffs are identified. One of the plaintiffs is from the US Patent Office, specifically the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and since that board is made up of people, obviously a plurality of them decided to deny the trademark, even though it had been granted before much to their chagrin. That board with a few different people had even tried to cancel it before and failed. So it's clear they aren't just criticizing something they disagree with, they are actively attempting to coerce compliance using the legal system we have.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
My disgust with current intellectual property law and disdain of corporate branding doesn't preclude me from calling out attempts at forcing a particular ~societal ideal~ using those systems. And please "compliance with the law"? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wasnt making reference to that and don't care. What I was making reference to was your eagerness not to care about an NFL team being called the equivalent of "The Darkies." Because SJW. Not SJW, but free speech, or rather as I like to refer to it "The Right to Offend." Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, it really is despicable that people are using the legal system to prevent organizations from profiting on the use of offensive racial slurs. how dare they take my valuable brand identity as the representative of Lazy Darkie Watermelon Soda You sure you didn't get me mixed up with your roommate again?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:What kind of chilling effect can we expect to take place, should this decision be upheld? Well sort of. You can trademark phrases, for example "I'm lovin' it." Armani posted:This line stands out to me more than anything else you've posted. Can you elaborate? If you said something that offends me - does my defense not count as free speech? Sure it would why wouldn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Putting it like that is a pretty revealing way to do it. Yea. I really think it's a good way to get the point across since people have these weird projections about how others handle criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No, I mean talking about free speech as if it's your license to be a dick says a lot about you. Where do you get the idea that I think free speech applies only to things I agree with? You, Thug Drink, and Paranoid Android have all independently claimed that Free Speech doesn't apply to criticism, which is weird, like you don't "get it" or something. Hence why I found it more instructive to refer to it as "The Right to Offend." It's basically this. I can say things that offend you, you can criticize those things as offensive, as racist, as ignorant, however you want. You also have no obligation to listen to me nor I to you. After that it gets complicated since legal actions by private entities can and do create a chilling effect on speech, something the government may be obligated to address. Regardless there is a lot of nuance and caselaw about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 21:43
|
|