TheImmigrant posted:No, it doesn't. This is not a meaningful response. Do you mean that the definition is wrong, or that there is nothing that fits the definition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's a pretty lovely summary. For example, you have to wilfully leave out the copyright law that is being used to challenge the Redskins name. Also, 'gently chide' is something only you said, right? Besides, last night people in this thread scoffed at any sort of legal recourse for appropriation in general -- so what can be done about appropriation in general beyond naming and shaming? Naming and shaming will be good to punish individuals but it'll hardly halt the process of appropriation, especially because so little of it is done maliciously or as a calculated attempt at disenfranchisement. Someone donning a headdress at a football game probably isn't doing it to deliberately insult Indigenous culture. So I fail to see how it's a lovely summary. Cultural appropriation is a thing that exists. It has been defined repeatedly and eloquently in this thread. It is symptomatic of the larger social inequalities at work in a society, as it's the ability of the oppressor to erase the oppressed's claim to a cultural artifact that differentiates appropriation from cultural exchange. However, there is no clear legalistic recourse to halt appropriation (except in edge cases like the Redskins, and even then they can still opt to call themselves the Redskins). quote:Why do you think posts like this are a good idea? Why be all flaccid like that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is not a meaningful response. Do you mean that the definition is wrong, or that there is nothing that fits the definition? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:59
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:That's a pretty unique example. The same copyright law that will maybe strip the Redskins of their trademark would not have prevented white people appropriating jazz, for example. And even if they have their trademark protection stripped, they could continue using the Redskin name if they so wished (though their brand would be diluted and probably will become unprofitable). Why would you think there was only one solution to anything? Your post was pure depressive thinking.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:That's a pretty unique example. The same copyright law that will maybe strip the Redskins of their trademark would not have prevented white people appropriating jazz, for example. I didn't claim it would. You also can't legislate racism out of existence, just address parts of it. This is neither startling, nor new, nor interesting. quote:Besides, last night people in this thread scoffed at any sort of legal recourse for appropriation in general No, they didn't. Back up this claim. quote:Because this thread has been going in circles forever. There are a set of posters consistently asking the same questions and getting the same answers and failing in any way to adequately address them, yeah. And now we have theimmigrant not even bothering with a fig leaf of a response. It is pretty boring, I'll admit, but it's like hitting t-balls for me. Kinda relaxing if not very fulfilling. quote:So I fail to see how it's a lovely summary. Cultural appropriation is a thing that exists. It has been defined repeatedly and eloquently in this thread. It is symptomatic of the larger social inequalities at work in a society, as it's the ability of the oppressor to erase the oppressed's claim to a cultural artifact that differentiates appropriation from cultural exchange. However, there is no clear legalistic recourse to halt appropriation (except in edge cases like the Redskins, and even then they can still opt to call themselves the Redskins). Why the hell would there be a clear legalistic recourse to a complex societal problem? That's a weird assumption. You can't do that with racism, as I already said. You can address parts of it. Your argument, again, is really lacking in anything. You could have assembled this reply to you to previous replies to you and others, basically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why would you think there was only one solution to anything? It's like when atheists complain about religion, as though if religion disappeared it would take humanity's capacity for magical thinking with it. I guess I sound like a Communist who, upon seeing socialist reforms enacted in a capitalist society, still stomps his feet and calls it a band-aid on a mortal wound.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I generally don't. It just seems to me that getting distracted by things like cultural appropriation is a lot like playing whack-a-mole when if you really want to win you should just unplug the machine. What is the "machine" here?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I generally don't. It just seems to me that getting distracted by things like cultural appropriation is a lot like playing whack-a-mole when if you really want to win you should just unplug the machine. So now we're back to the "this isn't important enough to care about" phase of dismissing the argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I didn't claim it would. You also can't legislate racism out of existence, just address parts of it. This is neither startling, nor new, nor interesting. Racism without the power to act on it is hardly a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I generally don't. It just seems to me that getting distracted by things like cultural appropriation is a lot like playing whack-a-mole when if you really want to win you should just unplug the machine. No, you sound like someone who, when someone is talking about downstream effects of a problem that are also then causative, stamps his feet and and says 'those are downstream effects'. This is, like, triply dumb, because it engages with a fallacious belief you have to decide between paying attention to symptoms or causes--obviously, any serious look at a problem will look at both, and because it ignores that these downstream effects become causative, and it ignores that people can actually choose to act or not act certain ways given more information: people thinking about cultural appropriation may actually choose to refrain from doing it when they understand the harms of it. Not everyone, but decent people who understand it. What is the argument that someone talking about cultural appropration prevents you from addressing the root problem? Try to stay away from silly analogies, you're really, really bad at those and they only make your argument look totally half-assed. unlimited shrimp posted:If racism = prejudice + power, which is a common SJ framing of racism, then it could absolutely be legislated out of existence by dismantling the white supremacist machine that drives our system. How? What would that look like? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:So now we're back to the "this isn't important enough to care about" phase of dismissing the argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I mean, here is a woman who is incorporating the symbols of her military service into the traditional dances of her tribe. It doesn't look like her culture is being erased. No one would call this cultural appropriation though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:No one would call this cultural appropriation though. People arguing in bad faith might!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What is the argument that someone it prevents you from addressing the root problem? Try to stay away from silly analogies, you're really, really bad at those and they only make your argument look totally half-assed. And it doesn't. I just don't understand the point of this thread, unless it's a circle jerk about how Cultural Appropriation is totally a thing that exists. quote:How? WHat would that look like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I disagree. My analogies are apt. You already agreed your 'treat the disease, not the symptom' analogy was bad. It is bad, especially because you do treat the symptoms in order to cure many diseases, and you always have to manage the symptoms. That analogy, if it's good for anything (it's not) is pretty good for disproving you, it pretty much sucks for your side of the argument. Do you understand this? Comparing a complex cultural interaction to a game of whack-a-mole is just obviously silly. The problem doesn't represent moles popping up, in any way, and the solution doesn't involve attacking them with force. We're talking about something done by the dominant majority to minority groups: that bears no resembalnce to whack-a-moel. quote:And it doesn't. I just don't understand the point of this thread, unless it's a circle jerk about how Cultural Appropriation is totally a thing that exists. Yeah, it's a thread to discuss cultural appropration. Do you think discussing racism is a circle-jerk? quote:Prison reform would be a good start. Better funding for urban schools. Re-enfranchise voters with a criminal record in states where they're barred from voting. There's a lot of ways to start dismantling the legal scaffolding of white supremacy. Cool. And you think by doing all of those things, you would strip racism of all power: that there aren't any levers of power, any avenues of power, that aren't legislatable, by which racism works? And again, how does discussing cultural appropriation inhibit your ability to do this? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Thread rating is back down to crap, quick someone get another annoying D&D regular in here so we can repeat more rumors the white supremacist doxx offsite came up with and save this thing from crashing!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
Back to CA = per se racism. It's like a tic. No one has established this contention on this thread - just a bunch of conclusory statements. Those deserve no more than an equally-conclusory rebuttal of "You're wrong."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Back to CA = per se racism. It's like a tic. No one has established this contention on this thread - just a bunch of conclusory statements. Those deserve no more than an equally-conclusory rebuttal of "You're wrong." I never said that cultural appropriation is per se racism. This is another thing you've gotten wrong, to join all the other things you've gotten wrong. Lots of contentions have been established. For example, you established the contention that cultural appropriation is a uselessly vague term. I asked you, then, if racism (which, you'll note, does not mean that cultural appropriation is 'per se racism') is also uselessly vague, and if not, what makes one useful and the other not. You have dodged this question over and over, I suspect because you have no answer to it. Given the frequency you throw some half-assed assertion out, combined with never, ever defending anything you say, it makes you look like just a shitposter. On the other hand, I have actually responded to even half-rear end complaints like yours--for example, but pointing out that I haven't ever equated racism and cultural appropriation. In fact, I pointed out one time that I felt there was clear cultural appropriation without any bigotry involved. So anyway, why is 'racism' a useful term but 'cultural appropriation' uselessly vague?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You already agreed your 'treat the disease, not the symptom' analogy was bad. It is bad, especially because you do treat the symptoms in order to cure many diseases, and you always have to manage the symptoms. That analogy, if it's good for anything (it's not) is pretty good for disproving you, it pretty much sucks for your side of the argument. Do you understand this? The whack-a-mole example is about attacking individual instances of cultural appropriation when the real goal is to stop it from happening, which would mean unplugging the machine and stopping the moles from popping up in the first place. Maybe you're just not savvy with how language actually works. quote:Cool. And you think by doing all of those things, you would strip racism of all power: that there aren't any levers of power, any avenues of power, that aren't legislatable, by which racism works? The end goal of social justice work is the liberation of oppressed groups. That's a concrete political goal with real-world implications. And if the end goal of social justice work is liberation of oppressed groups then you need to attack the fundamental problems that give birth to things like cultural appropriation. A big part of that is reducing or dismantling legislated prejudice. But attacking instances of cultural appropriation per se probably does little to address the underlying problem. But on the other hand, maybe making awareness of cultural appropriation universal, and making it a huge taboo, will do something to address the way people think that can't be easily legislated. quote:And again, how does discussing cultural appropriation inhibit your ability to do this? But now I'm coming around a bit. Good job, thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Thread rating is back down to crap, quick someone get another annoying D&D regular in here so we can repeat more rumors the white supremacist doxx offsite came up with and save this thing from crashing! It's probably rated as crap because the topic is made up nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So anyway, why is 'racism' a useful term but 'cultural appropriation' uselessly vague?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:In common parlance, the saying "treating the symptom instead of the disease" is the equivalent of saying "putting a band aid on a flesh wound" or "seeing the forest for the trees", or in other words, temporarily fixing a symptom of a problem without addressing the problem itself. Yes, it does. However, again, the symptoms of cultural appropriation are also causative; they become the disease. quote:The whack-a-mole example is about attacking individual instances of cultural appropriation when the real goal is to stop it from happening, which would mean unplugging the machine and stopping the moles from popping up in the first place. But oh no, there are other whack-a-mole machines, not just one! So really you need to shut the power down to the whole arcade! Just say what you mean straightforwardly without the dumb analogies. Do you think that attacking individual cases of racism--like, say, a case of a black person being denied promotion because they're black--is bad, and a distraction from legislative solutions? quote:Maybe you're just not savvy with how language actually works. That must be it! quote:Sure there are, but those non-legislatable things have more to do with human psychology in general and will probably never go away without some profound overhaul of human culture. Oh, well, that's pretty obviously wrong. We've made enormous strides in a lot of social areas, and it's generally understood that you have to progress along social, political, and structural fronts all at the same time to make permanent progress. Look at how gay rights are progressing, for example. The legal stuff is being pushed by popular sentiment, and then helping to push it along, too. quote:The end goal of social justice work is the liberation of oppressed groups. That's a concrete political goal with real-world implications. And if the end goal of social justice work is liberation of oppressed groups then you need to attack the fundamental problems that give birth to things like cultural appropriation. A big part of that is reducing or dismantling legislated prejudice. And one of the ways you do this is by informing people of the 'symptoms' so that it makes racism, cultural oppression, or what have you real to them. That's how you gather support, not by telling people talking about the symptoms to shut up about it. This would seem to be totally obvious. quote:But on the other hand, maybe making awareness of cultural appropriation universal, and making it a huge taboo, will do something to address the way people think that can't be easily legislated. Yeah, maybe it'll be like any other social issue. Maybe. Just maybe. Though I'm not saying you have to make it universal or a huge taboo. Just similar to the way we progress on other fronts: awareness is a big part of it, because a lot of people, through no fault of their own, cant' actually visualize the harms from things like racism and cultural appropriation. quote:It doesn't. But it still seems like a distraction, my comment above notwithstanding. It seems like small potatoes. "Distraction" implies it distracts you, that it inhibits you from doing these other things. Instead, as like with any other attempt to get something progressive done, you need to convince people, which includes educating people about the realities of the effects of this oppression of minorities, including things like cultural appropriation. It's also useful because it gets people to kind of go out on a limb avoiding the conclusion or fighting against it, and displaying the weakness of their arguments in doing so. The Scopes Trial, for example, did a good job of showing the weakness of the anti-evolutionists even though the case was decided in favor of the idea that teaching evolution could be prohibited. Miltank posted:'Racism' is a terrible vague word that means many things to many people. Kudos for having the balls to say it. Now explain why it's terrible that it means different things to different people. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:'Racism' is a terrible vague word that means many things to many people. For some, it's a synonym for 'cultural appropriation,' 'homework,' 'bad,' and 'poopypants.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:For some, it's a synonym for 'cultural appropriation,' 'homework,' 'bad,' and 'poopypants.' There's something bracing about the utter shamelessness with which you continue to repeat outright lies that were shown to be lies. It kind of reminds me of that one episode of The Good Wife. Was that actor from Friends? I think he was, but I never really watched Friends. Maybe now that Miltank has had the gumption to actually say that racism is a terrible and vague term you can drop your knowledge on that and tell us what you think? Is it, like cultural appropriation, uselessly vague?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So anyway, why is 'racism' a useful term but 'cultural appropriation' uselessly vague?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Miltank posted:'Racism' is a terrible vague word that means many things to many people. Not really, it means something fairly specific. The problem is that people keep want to explain how racist things aren't racism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There's something bracing about the utter shamelessness with which you continue to repeat outright lies that were shown to be lies. It kind of reminds me of that one episode of The Good Wife. Was that actor from Friends? I think he was, but I never really watched Friends. Son, I'm not fetching rhetorical sticks for you. I'm pointing out for my own amusement the complete intellectual bankruptcy of this line of thought you hold so dear, yet are unable or unwilling to articulate clearly. Carry on winning at Internet!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
"Racism" has been a worthless term at least on the internet ever since someone decided that everything could be racist if you simply applied the correct mental gymnastics to it and this thread is a perfect example of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Actually, no, it was doo-wop, which then got appropriated, disco, which then got appropriated, etc. etc. Music is a part of culture that evolves pretty quickly, but even then it's a constant stream of economic exploitation via appropriation. Why isn't this problematic for you? I guess I just see it as an unavoidable, if a little lovely, part of human nature and not something that can really be widely controlled. People will like things from other cultures and be ignorant jackasses about it because people are naturally ignorant jackasses in most situations, and as long as the appropriated group is able to keep on going and doesn't have their culture utterly wiped out, I don't see how it's any different from pretty much the entirety of recorded history (other than happening much faster and among smaller groups of people).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:The reason we classify things (x is racist, y isn't, x is cultural appropriation, y isn't) is that we want to treat things in the category one way and things not in the category another Even if we accept that this is the only reason to classify stuff. The 'fix' that is generally implied, at the base, is to participate rather than appropriate. Sometimes, it's clear the appropriation is cynical and intentional. Why would you not want, in some ideal world, to 'fix' appropriation and have people learn about the cultural significance of stuff and not misuse it in ways that pisses people off and offend them? I'm not saying, again, that this mild annoyance is any sort of priority. But why isn't it in the category of 'stuff to fix'? quote:I don't understand what people want us to do with things in the category "cultural appropriation". Like "People who wear clothes of cultures other than their own are appropriating culture" looks like a logically sound statement, but I don't understand why I should care. They might be or might not be, it depends on the clothing, and you should care only to the extent that it is in some way harmful to that culture or that people. I don't get what's challenging about that. You're using a pretty trivial example, so I wouldn't expect you to care that much. Can you care a bit that other people--some of the people in the culture--care? And can you care about the more serious stuff, like the ongoing appropriation of American Indian groups? This has already been addressed earlier too, by the way. LORD OF BUTT posted:I guess I just see it as an unavoidable, if a little lovely, part of human nature and not something that can really be widely controlled. People will like things from other cultures and be ignorant jackasses about it because people are naturally ignorant jackasses in most situations, and as long as everyone involved is able to keep on going, I don't see how it's any different from pretty much the entirety of recorded history (other than happening much faster and among smaller groups of people). Why is this true for cultural appropriation but not for racism, misogyny, etc? This seems to just be the 'humanity sucks, I give up' approach. Which is fine if you believe it, but that does involve ignoring that we have actually made progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Kudos for having the balls to say it. Now explain why it's terrible that it means different things to different people. I think its terrible because it is obfuscates meaning and starts shitfights between people arguing about different things. Zeitgueist posted:Not really, it means something fairly specific. The problem is that people keep want to explain how racist things aren't racism. I disagree. You can start with the difference between academic and dictionary definitions of racism. e: has anyone made an effort post here detailing both what they believe cultural appropriation is, and the negatives effects that it causes? Miltank fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I never said that cultural appropriation is per se racism. This is another thing you've gotten wrong, to join all the other things you've gotten wrong. Lots of contentions have been established. For example, you established the contention that cultural appropriation is a uselessly vague term. I asked you, then, if racism (which, you'll note, does not mean that cultural appropriation is 'per se racism') is also uselessly vague, and if not, what makes one useful and the other not. The CA as per se racism trope has been trotted out almost every loving page of this thread, maybe you never said it but pretending he's making it up is disingenuous at best. Obdicut posted:You have dodged this question over and over, I suspect because you have no answer to it. Given the frequency you throw some half-assed assertion out, combined with never, ever defending anything you say, it makes you look like just a shitposter. How about you establish some sort of basis for treating this question with any seriousness? "Prove my random baseless assertion wrong" is getting treated with exactly the seriousness it deserves. My issue with CA as a uselessly vague term is that it seems be being used to bolster nativist and racist nonsense by inappropriately tying bullshit grievances to examples which are clearly injustice for genuine other reasons. I don't really have an issue with the term as a neutral descriptor of one cultural taking something from another, but this loaded manner in which it is being used as innate negative is just a way of trying to tap into the moral outrage of events like the suppression of black artists for the benefit of people bitching about poo poo like westerners wearing saris, which feels about as much of a legitimate social justice issue as northern racists saying black men shouldn't play hockey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The CA as per se racism trope has been trotted out almost every loving page of this thread, maybe you never said it but pretending he's making it up is disingenuous at best. It hasn't. If you think it has, quote a post doing so. Miltank posted:I think its terrible because it is obfuscates meaning and starts shitfights between people arguing about different things. What should we use instead when we want to talk about racism? Jarmak posted:
What random assertion? That a particular word isn't uselessly vague? That's not an assertion, that's a negative. He's claiming that it's uselessly vague. quote:
Do you not understand, then, the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation? You dodged my questions earlier in the thread on this, so I think this might be part of your problem. It'd be cool if you addressed the stuff you already sidestepped. quote:e: has anyone made an effort post here detailing both what they believe cultural appropriation is, and the negatives effects that it causes? Yep, multiple times. Did you try that weird old trick of reading the thread? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What should we use instead when we want to talk about racism? Good question. What do you mean by racism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Good question. What do you mean by racism? Depends on the context I'm using it in. See, one cool thing is I'm not actually limited in the number of words that I can use, and the general understanding of racism--that people are put at a disadvantage by being treated differently by perceived differences in 'race', which is an artificial social construct that purports to be based on biological differences--is a pretty good starting point. Using that common knowledge as the springboard, if I'm talking about it I can use other words to clarify my meaning--like has been done with cultural appropriation in this thread, by me and various others. It's nifty! You can do this with other words and concepts too, like 'free speech'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It hasn't. If you think it has, quote a post doing so. I'm not re reading the thread back to you but here's two from the last two pages: Effectronica posted:I know, it's hosed-up that such a racist position is comorbid with denying the existence of cultural appropriation. Zeitgueist posted:Guys guys, if you just complain about concepts like Cultural Appropriation hard enough, maybe people will stop getting mad when you're racist and it all will go away. Obdicut posted:What random assertion? That a particular word isn't uselessly vague? That's not an assertion, that's a negative. He's claiming that it's uselessly vague. There's been a poo poo load of evidence that the word is useless presented, you're the one who decided to randomly demand other people prove racism isn't uselessly vague. I suspect you know this is a bullshit assertion so instead of actually supporting it you're trying to goad other people into attacking it so you can do you're normal pedantic goalpost shifting bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not re reading the thread back to you but here's two from the last two pages: By 'evidence', you mean assertions, right? Comorbid means 'often presenting at the same time as', not 'the same as'. In fact, it specifically means 'not the same as'. The other post compared reactions to cultural appropriation to racism: likewise, in comparing them, it is saying they aren't the same, but reactions to them are the same. It is very true that many of the same reactions, arguments that are used to diminish racism, avoid addressing symptoms of racism in order to claim a need to address causes of it, etc. are used to avoid talking about or addressing cultural appropriation. This is really unsurprising because the concepts are highly related. That doesn't mean they're the same. For example, patriarchy--the reality that men in our society have much more power than women--is comorbid with misogyny, but they are different things from each other. Does this help you understand? Edit: Also, why should people use precise language, like 'comorbid' if you're just going to ignore what it means? You're complaining about vagueness while ignoring words that actually have precise meanings. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:28
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not re reading the thread back to you but here's two from the last two pages: You don't know what the word "comorbid" means, you don't know what that sentence says, do you know anything at all? Also, I'm sure that you can provide an example of said evidence, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:By 'evidence', you mean assertions, right? Yeah dude, I'm totally buying that those statements weren't implying anything whatsoever edit: also gently caress you, I'm not digging through this thread over and over to prove poo poo you responded to exists, I personally witnessed you multiple times respond to people who made good arguments why the term is useless with bullshit like "why does it have to be useful to exist" or "prove that racism as a term isn't equally useless". Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah dude, I'm totally buying that those statements weren't implying anything whatsoever They were implying what they said: Racism and cultural approrpation are comorbid. This means they occur at the same time a lot, and implies they're related, which they are. It doesn't imply they're the same. Again, how can you simultaneously complain about vague language and then ignore that comorbid actually has a precise meaning, and that you're misreading it? Did you just jump over the example of another set of comorbid things---misogyny and patriarchy? That didn't help you understand where you're going wrong in this argument? quote:edit: also gently caress you, I'm not digging through this thread over and over to prove poo poo you responded to exists, I personally witnessed you multiple times respond to people who made good arguments why the term is useless with bullshit like "why does it have to be useful to exist" or "prove that racism as a term isn't equally useless". It's true that I said I'm not sure what useful means, or why it's relevant, and I asked why racism isn't subject to the same criticism. For some reason, me asking that is some sort of unfair move, rather than a completely apropos question. But I'm going to go ahead and conclude you don't have any evidence that people have provided evidence, rather than just asserting, that the term is uselessly vague. They didn't make any good arguments, they just made assertions. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:39
|
|