|
Effectronica posted:How can you have a discussion on this issue with you, when anyone who has a different opinion on the matter has exactly the opinion you think is bad, and is also furious? How can you discuss ephemeral concepts with a materialist meaningfully? Why should people discuss things with you, when you have demonstrated you have no interest in discussing things? It's mostly about signal-to-noise ratio. If someone complains that a concept is vague and lumps too many different things together, you probably shouldn't try to make it even more vague, demand to define it solely case-by-case or, as in case of Obdicut, argue that you can't really be sure of anything anyway.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:To clarify: This is amusing because I actually called him baby fishmech in a post earlier but decided to delete it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's mostly about signal-to-noise ratio. If someone complains that a concept is vague and lumps too many different things together, you probably shouldn't try to make it even more vague, demand to define it solely case-by-case or, as in case of Obdicut, argue that you can't really be sure of anything anyway. I've never argued anything close to 'you can't really be sure of anything'. I am, in fact, arguing the opposite. The person I'm arguing against has said that you can't tie together these--to him--isolated incidents of cultural appropriation in any meaningful way, that cultural appropriation doesn't meany anything. I am arguing against that. How, in your head, does that turn into me arguing you can't really be sure of anything? Can you cite what post started this idea in your head?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's mostly about signal-to-noise ratio. If someone complains that a concept is vague and lumps too many different things together, you probably shouldn't try to make it even more vague, demand to define it solely case-by-case or, as in case of Obdicut, argue that you can't really be sure of anything anyway. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about in that post, jackass.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't, though. When someone says that cultural appropriation is too vague a term, I ask why. That's because it's the topic of the thread, and important. I don't ask it about every concept. You can tell this because there's very few things I've asked for the definition of. I have problems with cultural appropriation because the examples you give are not consistent with every definition you tried to make. First it was about the dominant culture taking an element of minority culture and using it differently, causing its message to distort. OK, fine. But the examples people are actually upset about are the ones that don't fit. Japanese-Americans being upset about white people misusing kanji and kimonos are probably most grating, because it's not an element of their culture to begin with and the elements themselves are used in the way that doesn't conflict with their purpose (in the culture that actually invented them and used them, instead of just treating them as symbols of what they think they lost). There is also the weird claim that European cultures can't be ever appropriated, which was pretty stupid - the commercialization of Christmas and legendary figures such as Santa Claus is pretty much a model example of cultural appropriation. During the discussion, the definition shifted into "majority culture taking an element of minority culture, but if they don't try to understand it hard enough". quote:I've never said anything close to nobody being able to define anything, in the least. That's kind of what I"m arguing against, actually, that even if you can't come up with a technical, precise definition of cultural appropriation (or racism, or sexism) they are still useful umbrella concepts. Useful for what exactly? What do you gain by lumping white musicians copying music from black artists and never crediting them along with white people with dreadlocks? quote:If you think I've said something like "You can't really define anything because it's in their heads", then quote that post. You can't, because it's bullshit: i never said anything like that. quote:I've never argued anything close to 'you can't really be sure of anything'. I am, in fact, arguing the opposite. The person I'm arguing against has said that you can't tie together these--to him--isolated incidents of cultural appropriation in any meaningful way, that cultural appropriation doesn't meany anything. I am arguing against that. It's like I said your definition sucks and you demanded a photo where it performs an oral sexual act. You took a hyperbole and chose to interpret it as a statement. I'm not going through all your posts again to cite all the places where you tried to make the topic as obtuse as possible. If you want a good example, go to the post where you argued that if you can't clearly define cultural appropriation, you can't also define racism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Pretty sure he was singing about his (western) clothing Pretty sure he was referring to "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:I have problems with cultural appropriation because the examples you give are not consistent with every definition you tried to make. First it was about the dominant culture taking an element of minority culture and using it differently, causing its message to distort. OK, fine. But the examples people are actually upset about are the ones that don't fit. Japanese-Americans being upset about white people misusing kanji and kimonos are probably most grating, because it's not an element of their culture to begin with and the elements themselves are used in the way that doesn't conflict with their purpose (in the culture that actually invented them and used them, instead of just treating them as symbols of what they think they lost). There is also the weird claim that European cultures can't be ever appropriated, which was pretty stupid - the commercialization of Christmas and legendary figures such as Santa Claus is pretty much a model example of cultural appropriation. During the discussion, the definition shifted into "majority culture taking an element of minority culture, but if they don't try to understand it hard enough". It wasn't first just about distorting the message, no. I have consistently said the kanji/kimono stuff is very small scale. I never made the claim that European cultures can't be appropriated, and in fact pointed out the appropriation of one. My definition didn't shift, I have talked about participation versus appropriation since the start. When you say 'you', do you not mean me but 'every other poster in this thread who thinks cultural appropriation exists'? I think you're confusing me with others. quote:Useful for what exactly? What do you gain by lumping white musicians copying music from black artists and never crediting them along with white people with dreadlocks? Because a similar mechanism of action is at work in both places. Something from one culture, with meaning inside that culture, has been removed from its context and put into another culture. Again, my main problem is not the white musicians, who often were very participatory, but with the structure of radio stations, labels, producers, clubs, etc. at the time, who were the ones who insisted that the black music be separated from its roots. Again, to help you understand, this is like asking "What do you gain by lumping white teachers placing more black students into remedial classes than their white peers who perform at the same level with black people getting disproportionate prison sentences?" You can put up any two particular aspects of any concept together and ask how they're related. quote:It's like I said your definition sucks and you demanded a photo where it performs an oral sexual act. You took a hyperbole and chose to interpret it as a statement. I'm not going through all your posts again to cite all the places where you tried to make the topic as obtuse as possible. If you want a good example, go to the post where you argued that if you can't clearly define cultural appropriation, you can't also define racism. But I do think you can define cultural appropriation. I do think you can define racism. So again, how are you not actually on my side with this argument? So if it was hyperbole for me to say that you can't really define anything, what was it hyperbole of? Because I haven't said anything close to it, and have, if anything, said the opposite. So your defense of hyperbole really doesn't make a ton of sense. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Ok, so let us all assume that Cultural Appropriation is a thing that happens, often. And of course, is mostly the fault of white westerners. OK, no problem. Other than the golden rule, why should anyone care? It's clearly racist and assholish to dress up like native Americans who have specifically asked you to stop. Likewise, blackface is offensive, has been clearly labeled as such, and should be off limits unless they want a serious social backlash. But minor poo poo like eating sushi or having a hairstyle? Who the gently caress made Jamaicans the boss of all hair? Dreads look like poo poo on white guys, and isn't natural in the least, but that's his right to look like a complete loving idiot. Laugh at the idiot if he starts to claim he's "Rastafarian". And if CNN and the old people who watch it see a trend on TV 20 years after it was around in minority communities and think that it's New And Special when some coked up white girl does it? Who really cares? A few internet warriors and Academics don't matter. "Stop copying me!" is schoolyard bullshit at it's lowest. Dressing up as the black kid in class and makinig a mockery of her is offensive. The line between the two shouldn't be so hard to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Ok, so let us all assume that Cultural Appropriation is a thing that happens, often. And of course, is mostly the fault of white westerners. That second part really doesn't follow at all. quote:OK, no problem. Other than the golden rule, why should anyone care? It's clearly racist and assholish to dress up like native Americans who have specifically asked you to stop. Likewise, blackface is offensive, has been clearly labeled as such, and should be off limits unless they want a serious social backlash. But minor poo poo like eating sushi or having a hairstyle? Who the gently caress made Jamaicans the boss of all hair? Dreads look like poo poo on white guys, and isn't natural in the least, but that's his right to look like a complete loving idiot. Laugh at the idiot if he starts to claim he's "Rastafarian". And if CNN and the old people who watch it see a trend on TV 20 years after it was around in minority communities and think that it's New And Special when some coked up white girl does it? Who really cares? A few internet warriors and Academics don't matter. As has been said from the beginning, all the trivial poo poo is, indeed, trivial. The more important issues are things like the continued exploitation and destruction of Native American culture, for example. And yes, the remedy is a lot of the time laughter, mockery, shaming, etc. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
I was being flippant with the "fault of white westerners" bit. My apologies. Though I definitely agree that Native Americans are easily one of the most exploited classes on the planet. I don't however, know what can be done to help
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:As has been said from the beginning, all the trivial poo poo is, indeed, trivial. The more important issues are the continued exploitation and destruction of Native American culture, for example. What confuses me is the relevance of Native American cultural 'exploitation and destruction' at the hands of frat boys wearing war bonnets compared to the exploitation and destruction that native populations face every single day on the reservations. Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It wasn't first just about distorting the message, no. I have consistently said the kanji/kimono stuff is very small scale. I never made the claim that European cultures can't be appropriated, and in fact pointed out the appropriation of one. My definition didn't shift, I have talked about participation versus appropriation since the start. You asked about why I consider the definition of cultural appropriation unclear or vague. I thought you meant the definition functioning within the thread, not specifically your definition. quote:Because a similar mechanism of action is at work in both places. Something from one culture, with meaning inside that culture, has been removed from its context and put into another culture. Again, my main problem is not the white musicians, who often were very participatory, but with the structure of radio stations, labels, producers, clubs, etc. at the time, who were the ones who insisted that the black music be separated from its roots. Actually, in many of these examples, nothing gets removed from its context. Kanji is an alphabet and its only function is to communicate Japanese words. Kimono and sari are garments, worn in the past for various purposes, but mostly to look good. If a Westerner puts them on because they look exotic, it is still within bounds of their normal use. Compare it to the war bonnet, which is used strictly for ceremonial purposes. It's like trying to present wearing a suit and dressing up as a Catholic pope as the same thing. quote:But I do think you can define cultural appropriation. I do think you can define racism. So again, how are you not actually on my side with this argument? Sorry then, I must have misunderstood your intentions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What confuses me is the relevance of Native American cultural 'exploitation and destruction' at the hands of frat boys wearing war bonnets compared to the exploitation and destruction that native populations face every single day on the reservations. It's linked you boob.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
I wanna point this one out.Obdicut posted:There isn't a coherent modern understanding of racism Obdicut posted:I do think you can define racism. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Some of it certainly can be trivial, but this thread wasn't created by people outraged about cultural appropriation, it was started by people who question whether it exists or not. Pretty much everything in this thread could equally apply to the concept of microaggression, but that doesn't stop it from also being something that piles a little bit of extra stress on people who are by and large already poo poo on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What confuses me is the relevance of Native American cultural 'exploitation and destruction' at the hands of frat boys wearing war bonnets compared to the exploitation and destruction that native populations face every single day on the reservations. Well, just like the damage done to the black community by frat boys putting on blackface and having 'pimps and hos' parties vs. the destruction that the black population faces at the hand of the criminal justice system, they are very different in scale. Where is the confusing part? Thug Lessons posted:I wanna point this one out. What's confusing you about this? There isn't one, single, modern definition of racism. That doesn't mean you can't define it. You can give a definition of racism, but not [i]the[/i definition.] Gantolandon posted:You asked about why I consider the definition of cultural appropriation unclear or vague. I thought you meant the definition functioning within the thread, not specifically your definition. What definition functioning within the thread? How'd you come up with it? If what you're saying is that people have differing definitions of it, that's true. It's true of every other concept, too. quote:
Actually there are a lot of saris that are for ceremonial purposes too, and they are worn for those purposes these days too, not just in the past. However, since I have agreed, and still agree, that kanji and clothing wearing are trivial examples, why are they the ones you keep referencing? Nobody else is citing those as really egregious examples, either. quote:Sorry then, I must have misunderstood your intentions. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
I constantly forget about micro aggressions, and feel awful anew every time I'm reminded that it happens. Awful for my own accidental ones that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What's confusing you about this? There isn't one, single, modern definition of racism. That doesn't mean you can't define it. You can give a definition of racism, but not [i]the[/i definition.] It's not confusing it's that you're correcting people for saying "the" instead of "a"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not confusing it's that you're correcting people for saying "the" instead of "a" It's not even that, if we're playing grammar games now, "You can't define racism" doesn't mean "there's more then one definition" it means "it's indefinable". we need a failing  smiley.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not confusing it's that you're correcting people for saying "the" instead of "a" I was saying that there isn't a coherent modern definition of racism. Because there isn't. That doesn't mean you can't define racism. Jarmak posted:It's not even that, if we're playing grammar games now, "You can't define racism" doesn't mean "there's more then one definition" it means "it's indefinable". Well, since what I said was "I do think you can define racism" what are you talking about? Who said "You can't define racism"? This is getting really silly. You guys have been arguing against poo poo I didn't say for like a page now, why not knock it off and talk about, I dunno, cultural appropriation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I was saying that there isn't a coherent modern definition of racism. Because there isn't. That doesn't mean you can't define racism.  : Ah, I believe you'll find that if it is possible to define racism, there must be a coherent definition. Have you even read the Tractatus? If it is possible to define racism there must be at least one coherent defintion, perhaps many, unless those "definitions" were themselves incoherent which is a contradiction in terms. Reductio ad absurdum. Your argument is invalid
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:
This doesn't make any sense, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I don't see it. You don't see the link between appropriating culture and destruction/exploitation of a people? Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
zeitgueist "deconstruction of a people" is something i'd expect to see in an israeli military manual, not one of your posts
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:zeitgueist "deconstruction of a people" is something i'd expect to see in an israeli military manual, not one of your posts Spell check, I'm fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
How will the great French, Egyptian, and Chinese people deal with this horrendous appropriation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaS4sFDzw1Q Because if a lot of examples in this thread are cultural appropriation and worthy of decrying, then so is this ad. * Takes elements from a different culture * Strips them of context * Commodifies them to sell a product * Turns historical clothing with cultural meaning into a costume * Whatever the opposite of "yellowfacing" is Joan of Arc was wearing black and Cleopatra was wearing white. I think you can all see the racial implications. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I was saying that there isn't a coherent modern definition of racism. Because there isn't. That doesn't mean you can't define racism. The UN has a clear-cut definition (although they use 'racial discrimination' instead of 'racism'): quote:the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. And SJ movements seem to have coalesced around "Racism = (Racial) Prejudice + Power".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Let us English posted:How will the great French, Egyptian, and Chinese people deal with this horrendous appropriation. You do realize that this canard has been refuted a thousand times already, right? The colonial power imbalance between the West and the rest of the world provides much of the power of cultural appropriation. That one picture of Botswanan metalheads from way back is an even worse example--those people are part of the culture they're supposed to be appropriating!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:You do realize that this canard has been refuted a thousand times already, right? The colonial power imbalance between the West and the rest of the world provides much of the power of cultural appropriation. Please tell me more about the time the west colonized Korea. Somehow this tragic chapter in history has been lost to time. By this logic Japanese house wives watching K-Drama and K-Pop videos would be the height of post-colonial cultural appropriation. G-Dragon is for Koreans only!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:What is this based on? And their definition won't fit other contexts. In other contexts, racism can mean other things. That's what this entire boring-rear end derail has been about. No, cultural appropriation won't mean always the same exact thing every time its used. Yes, sometimes it will be for trivial things, other times for mighty things. Is this actually a problem? No, because we can contextualize. quote:And SJ movements seem to have coalesced around "Racism = (Racial) Prejudice + Power". As usual, your sources for things remain mysterious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Please tell me more about the time the west colonized Korea. Somehow this tragic chapter in history has been lost to time. quote:By this logic Japanese house wives watching K-Drama and K-Pop videos would be the height of post-colonial cultural appropriation. G-Dragon is for Koreans only! E: It's probably a waste of time talking to you, though, since your avatar betrays your own attitude towards East Asians. ("lol East Asians are weird and funny and can't English amirite"  )
Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Please tell me more about the time the west colonized Korea. Somehow this tragic chapter in history has been lost to time. Still dodging my question, I see. You posted an article which points out that engagement rings are a legacy of viewing women as property. You treated it as self evident that the content of the article was objectionable, but offered no specifics. Would you care at this point to distinguish yourself from Sean Hannity by elaborating? It might seem like a tangent, but it's very difficult to take people seriously about an issue such as cultural appropriation when they blindly align themselves with reaction against social justice. Perhaps you are feeling defensive because you gave your wife an engagement ring; that would make sense, but I don't know because you have stayed mute on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:As usual, your sources for things remain mysterious. And you're one to talk, making bold claims about the (un)meaning of words like a junior fresh out of his first semiotics course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf How does that paper show that social justice movements have coalesced around "Racism = (Racial) Prejudice + Power"? Is Carlos Hoyt Jr. some sort of authority or something? I honestly can't tell if you're just trolling now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Still dodging my question, I see. You posted an article which points out that engagement rings are a legacy of viewing women as property. You treated it as self evident that the content of the article was objectionable, but offered no specifics. Would you care at this point to distinguish yourself from Sean Hannity by elaborating? There are hundreds of practices we engage in every day that have roots in previously abhorrent practices. Most things regarding marriage fall into this category. However, we as a society have changed the meaning of almost everything regarding marriage in the past 100 years. To simply say, well that's because a patriarchy and condemn them is to ignore the real social changes that have occurred. The change of marriage from a property transaction to a whatever the gently caress the married couple views it as is a fantastic change in our society that should be celebrated. Ignoring this change and shouting patriarchy damages actual issues with it in our society and erases the contributions that feminism made to our culture in the 20th century. But of course, anyone who raises an eyebrow and this bullshit must be some right-wing reactionary like Sean Hannity. I'm sure that black & white thinking will take you far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:How does that paper show that social justice movements have coalesced around "Racism = (Racial) Prejudice + Power"? Is Carlos Hoyt Jr. some sort of authority or something? In my anecdotal experience interacting with social justice activists at the graduate level, and in reading various SJ tumblr posts on racism, the framing of "racism" as "R = P + P" seems to be in vogue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Fine, I'll re-phrase. Oh. Ok. I haven't found anything like that. Right now my main interaction with 'social justice' is working with a professor and a local hispanic unity group to help would-be deportees plead their cases, especially in establishing narratives that show they face death, torture, etc. if they go home. Racism comes up a lot but I haven't heard any one mention anything about racism = prejudice plus power. For example, one ofthe problems in undocumented alien communities--and in the larger hispanic community--is racism inside that community. People who are powerless can still be racist, and it can prevent them making common cause with other people in a powerless situation and potentially gain power. I know you're not saying that's your definition, I'm just pointing out that people doing social justice often have to deal with pretty intricate workings of racism so it's unlikely they'll boil it down to a six word phrase. People posting poo poo on tumblr I have no clue about, I don't pay attention to that, nor youtube comments, neither. Anyway, do you get my main point? Racism isn't ever going to have just one definition, and that's fine. You contextualize. You don't have to just shout 'racism' and then shut up, you can talk about it at length. Same deal with cultural appropriation: you don't have to just shout that out, you can contextualize, you can talk about how it's a very minor form of it, or even argue about whether it is or not, or make an argument to, while it's happening, it's okay because great art is being created, or whatever. You're allowed to say other words.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Are you familiar at all with the experiences of Korea? Do you not know about Korean adoptees? Or the abuses committed by American forces during the Korean war, or the depredations that strongmen like Syngman Rhee committed with American support? What about the fact that the weapons, tactics, and imperialist ideas Japan conquered Korea with all came one way or another from Europe, and the Europeans had no problem with what Japan did? All those atrocities happened, but you weren't talking about western atrocities you were talking about colonialism specifically. None of these are colonialism, a word that has a very specific meaning and historical context, it doesn't just mean bad things the west has done. Your insistence on infantilizing East Asia and your attempt to absolve Japan of its guilt by saying 'well, they were just copying to west' as if Japan had no agency in the matter boggles the mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Let us English posted:All those atrocities happened, but you weren't talking about western atrocities you were talking about colonialism specifically. None of these are colonialism, a word that has a very specific meaning and historical context, it doesn't just mean bad things the west has done. Yup, it's like we double victimized japan, first by giving them the weapons, tactics, and Imperialist ideas which inexorably forced them to be belligerent in ww2, but then we punished them for it! Those awful us! Question for the group: where do moccassins fall on the spectrum of cultural appropriation. Surely they don't have the objectionable impact of feather headdresses but still, should non-Indians wear them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:02
|
|