|
Let us English posted:There are hundreds of practices we engage in every day that have roots in previously abhorrent practices. Yes, let's educate ourselves about them, using means like that article. quote: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. It's strange to me that you are characterizing the article as "simply saying 'well that's patriarchy'" let alone "shouting 'patriarchy.'" The article explains the origins and gives insight into the author's distaste for the practice, but it sounds like shouting to you. I wonder why that is? quote: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. Well thanks for taking the time to distinguish yourself from Sean Hannity; you hadn't, until I pressed you. There's a little difference, anyhow. But even though you want to "celebrate" advances in our society, you take offense when a woman tries to explain and educate about those very advances. Maybe you're used to "celebrating" things by not talking about them and complaining when others (especially women and minorities) talk, but how peculiar that is.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Obdicut posted: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. Your critique of the R=P+P formulation is totally valid of course. R=P+P primarily applies to systemic racism, and it gets all muddy when people start trying to apply it to racial discrimination between individuals. It's where you get statements like "People of colour can't be racist!" which is maybe true at a societal level but is cold comfort for the black dude being profiled by the Korean store owner or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, let's educate ourselves about them, using means like that article. I'm going to guess that the two of us would probably agree on 90% of the time on actual matters of policy or actions to be taken, yet you're claiming I'm on the far end of the political spectrum from you. This sort of policing is the same kind of bullshit that's driven the tea part and conservatives ever further towards the right. You're trying to force people to agree with you by appealing to their ego and identity: "Agree with me or you're not a liberal/leftist/advocate of social justice" or "Agree with me or you're no better than Rush Limbaugh." And this attitude has permeated the thread, not just your posts. Only Obdicut has made an attempt to actually engage in good faith. Everyone else arguing for Cultural Appropriation has constantly been posting with the assumption that those who disagree are right-wing haters of social justice loaded into their posts. You're claim that someone who disagrees with you as to whether some random think piece from Salon is hyperbolic social-signaling bullshit must be Sean Hanitty until proven otherwise is simply the most egregious example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Really! The tea party was created because of efforts to police society through political correctness, how incredible. I don't think I've ever heard or seen of a person who thinks such a thing, who does not have some sort of sympathy for extreme right-wing bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really! The tea party was created because of efforts to police society through political correctness, how incredible. I don't think I've ever heard or seen of a person who thinks such a thing, who does not have some sort of sympathy for extreme right-wing bigotry. I didn't say that. And I didn't say a single thing about political correctness, that's 100% your projection. I said that the drive for a specific kind of ideological purity drove conservatives to more extreme positions. There is a similar kind of policing that goes on in the left which can be seen in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Let us English posted:I didn't say that. And I didn't say a single thing about political correctness, that's 100% your projection. No of course not, the likes of you has stepped up their game since the 1990s. It'd be too gauche to use a catchphrase. quote:I said that the drive for a specific kind of ideological purity drove conservatives to more extreme positions. Whose striving for ideological purity led to the creation of the tea party? Was it right-wing bigots, or somebody else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really! The tea party was created because of efforts to police society through political correctness, how incredible. But the Tea Party is a pretty good example of illegitimate grievance from way up-thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted: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. I think there are different definitions of  Social Justice here ~1) Helping people who are being discriminated against systematically 2) Being an internet retard with terrible unrealistic opinions and misplaced priorities in an echo chamber who has vaguely heard of 1 at some point HTH suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I think your point is valid in general, however I also think it's fair to say that "racism" in common understanding has a working definition that applies to most if not all cases. Even something like the UN definition of racial discrimination -- I fail to see how that doesn't apply to most any case of "racism" even if - on a case-by-case basis - a more specific, context-dependent definition can be used. It may apply to most cases. I'm not arguing against it as a good, workable definition. I'm saying that there isn't one, single, coherent definition. You contextualize. Just like you do with cultural appropriation. That is the full extent of what I'm saying. blowfish posted:I think there are different definitions of I just don't give a shti about #2 that much, doesn't seem to have much impact on reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 11:12
|
|
Obdicut posted:It may apply to most cases. I'm not arguing against it as a good, workable definition. I'm saying that there isn't one, single, coherent definition. You contextualize. Just like you do with cultural appropriation. That is the full extent of what I'm saying. Going with the definition of pornography, eh?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Going with the definition of pornography, eh? Or any other abstract or umbrella term that's ever been used, like 'free speech'. The reason the pornography thingy is silly is because that's a legal definition with that sort of vagueness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The reason the pornography thingy is silly is because that's a legal definition with that sort of vagueness. You got it exactly wrong. Justice Stewart's famous dictum was him declining to propose a legal definition, while simultaneously declining to classify the speech in question as pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [378 U.S. at 197] It would be refreshing if the ethnic fetishists would be similarly candid about the nebulousness 'cultural appropriation.' It seems that it has no fixed definition, other than being something those people (racists with bad dogma and poopypants) do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You got it exactly wrong. Justice Stewart's famous dictum was him declining to propose a legal definition, while simultaneously declining to classify the speech in question as pornography. Yeah, no. The actual legal standard for pornography is that the community decides it: that's the legal definition of pornography. That was what I was saying: The legal definition of pornography is vague and unclear. I don't know if you just didn't understand my post, or what. I'm really, really clearly saying that 'cultural appropriation' has no fixed definition, nor does racism, free speech, or a ton of other concepts, and that that's fine, because when you say it you get to contextualize it, not just shout it and run away. Ethnic fetishist is a pretty cool phrase, but it kinda tips your hand a bit. Might wanna dial that one back. Edit: Legal definition of pornography: "patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description of sexual matters." and "utterly without redeeming social value". Obdicut fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, no. The actual legal standard for pornography is that the community decides it: that's the legal definition of pornography. That was what I was saying: The legal definition of pornography is vague and unclear. In other words, the legal system punts it. This is precisely why the term is legally problematic. A 'vague and unclear' definition really isn't a definition at all. quote:I don't know if you just didn't understand my post, or what. I'm really, really clearly saying that 'cultural appropriation' has no fixed definition, nor does racism, free speech, or a ton of other concepts, and that that's fine, because when you say it you get to contextualize it, not just shout it and run away. That's fine if it becomes clear from context, but so often 'cultural appropriation' is a dog whistle for a casual and frivolous accusation of racism. It's as if fetishists of exotic headgear (is that better?) realize that they've overplayed their hand by accusing meteorology of racism (rain clouds are black!), and have devised a new code for the in-group. quote:Ethnic fetishist is a pretty cool phrase, but it kinda tips your hand a bit. Might wanna dial that one back. How about Third-World fetishist? You're savvier than some of your fellow travelers on this thread, but there's an accusation of 'racism' just dying to type itself on your keyboard, I can tell. quote:Edit: Legal definition of pornography: Again, this is a very problematic standard (and I use the term loosely here) from a legal standpoint. Legal systems should strive for objectivity and predictability with definitions. After all, it would be manifestly unjust to levy judgment against someone, or find them guilty of racism before the Court of D & D*, under a subjective, unpredictable standard. *Nothing could be, like, more uncool than that, other than maybe being a white, middle-class US citizen who can't afford the new Mac or annoying eyeglass frames. (By the way, good work with indigent immigrant communities. I read that above - this is also a significant portion of my work, believe it or not.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:In other words, the legal system punts it. This is precisely why the term is legally problematic. A 'vague and unclear' definition really isn't a definition at all. Yes, thank you for restating my point. quote:Again, this is a very problematic standard (and I use the term loosely here) from a legal standpoint. Legal systems should strive for objectivity and predictability with definitions. After all, it would be manifestly unjust to levy judgment against someone, or find them guilty of racism before the Court of D & D*, under a subjective, unpredictable standard. Exactly. I think that the pornography standard is terrible. Which is why I'd also think a "Cultural Appropriation" legal standard of similar vagueness to be terrible. You are bad at reading, and/or understanding. quote:(By the way, good work with indigent immigrant communities. I read that above - this is also a significant portion of my work, believe it or not.) Hope you approach it with more intelligence and integrity than you use in your lazy shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
The article on engagement rings is accurate, but not really saying anything. Yes, it was a form of "down payment" on a virgin wife. It isn't that anymore, at least to most of us. A lot of women still expect an engagement ring, diamond or not, and unless your particular partner says pre-hand that they don't want one, it could be a very poor idea to not get one for the proposal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The article on engagement rings is accurate, but not really saying anything. Yes, it was a form of "down payment" on a virgin wife. It isn't that anymore, at least to most of us. A lot of women still expect an engagement ring, diamond or not, and unless your particular partner says pre-hand that they don't want one, it could be a very poor idea to not get one for the proposal. It's saying exactly the truth, which believe it or not, not every young person is aware of. It needs to be stated repeatedly until everyone is aware of the history, and then if people want to keep doing it we can say they are making an informed decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Obdicut, what is the value of placing the kinds of oppression you're talking about, which seem to me to be economic, legal, military etc in nature within the cultural context? It seems to me that the criticism of "cultural appropriation" as a vague or useless term isn't just a blanket criticism of any linguistically defined concept, but specific to the words being used to describe this concept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's saying exactly the truth, which believe it or not, not every young person is aware of. It needs to be stated repeatedly until everyone is aware of the history, and then if people want to keep doing it we can say they are making an informed decision. In this case wouldn't ignorance really be bliss, though? Like if nobody knows what it used to mean, then it doesn't mean that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's saying exactly the truth, which believe it or not, not every young person is aware of. It needs to be stated repeatedly until everyone is aware of the history, and then if people want to keep doing it we can say they are making an informed decision. Aside from the relatively recency of the practice being (haha) appropriated from the rich, how many people really think it was anything but part of a dowry on a virgin wife? (The 9 month thing I had no idea of admittedly, though it makes sense)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's saying exactly the truth, which believe it or not, not every young person is aware of. It needs to be stated repeatedly until everyone is aware of the history, and then if people want to keep doing it we can say they are making an informed decision. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:In this case wouldn't ignorance really be bliss, though? Like if nobody knows what it used to mean, then it doesn't mean that anymore. I guess it depends. Within that ignorance could be some ugly unexpressed expectations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
I find at-length discussion of medieval sexual mores a great way to pick up women in bars. The Wisdom of Goons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I find at-length discussion of medieval sexual mores a great way to pick up women in bars. Why are you forcing patriarchal expectations on strange women at bars?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I find at-length discussion of medieval sexual mores a great way to pick up women in bars. I think I've found your problem hoss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I think I've found your problem hoss. Homophobic, I know, not trying to pick up men equally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I find at-length discussion of medieval sexual mores a great way to pick up women in bars. Do you propose marriage to women in bars?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Homophobic, I know, not trying to pick up men equally.  Come on now, let's not do this. SedanChair has the right of it. Why are you talking to women in bars about marriage proposals and norms? Or hell, trying to "pick up" women in bars in the first place...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's saying exactly the truth, which believe it or not, not every young person is aware of. It needs to be stated repeatedly until everyone is aware of the history, and then if people want to keep doing it we can say they are making an informed decision. If the meaning has completely changed and the old meaning is wholly irrelevant to modern life then why is an awareness of the history at all important? Why would it impact decision making? Nobody is perpetuating the old practice because the old practice is dead. It's like arguing over word use based on etymology. It's fun for English students studying Shakespeare but the ancient meaning of, say, "superfluous" is hardly relevant to modern language use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:If the meaning has completely changed and the old meaning is wholly irrelevant to modern life then why is an awareness of the history at all important? Why would it impact decision making? Nobody is perpetuating the old practice because the old practice is dead. At least one good reason would be to stop buying Diamonds from literal slave masters like DeBeers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:If the meaning has completely changed and the old meaning is wholly irrelevant to modern life then why is an awareness of the history at all important? Why would it impact decision making? Nobody is perpetuating the old practice because the old practice is dead. What makes you think it's dead? Domestic violence over double standards of male vs. female infidelity happens every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What makes you think it's dead? Domestic violence over double standards of male vs. female infidelity happens every day. It doesn't seem to be a double standard between individuals. The public may view it as a double standard and be more forgiving of men, which is repulsive; but most of the women I know would take revenge on a cheating spouse. Infidelity is not healthy for a monogamous relationship, regardless of who is doing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It doesn't seem to be a double standard between individuals. The public may view it as a double standard and be more forgiving of men, which is repulsive; but most of the women I know would take revenge on a cheating spouse. Infidelity is not healthy for a monogamous relationship, regardless of who is doing it. Among yuppies it's less common, but it is absolutely a double standard for many individuals. Just because yuppies have cottoned onto something doesn't mean we should stop talking about it. We should keep talking about it until the full understanding of it is universal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:At least one good reason would be to stop buying Diamonds from literal slave masters like DeBeers. SedanChair posted:What makes you think it's dead? Domestic violence over double standards of male vs. female infidelity happens every day. Keep in mind we're talking about how engagement rings used to represent something like a bride price, or reflected how women were seen as "property" in a business arrangement. I doubt very much that many people view it this way any longer, women or men. Nowadays it's simply a ritual. Maybe a wasteful, empty one, but it hardly carries the same connotations it once did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I fail to see how the engagement ring ritual directly relates to domestic violence. Connotations are exactly what it carries. Like taking the name of your husband, it alludes to a time when women were viewed as property and violence was the socially and legally acceptable method of keeping your property in line. if you think that is a relic of the past, be glad you don't work in my field because the truth would depress you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Connotations are exactly what it carries. Like taking the name of your husband, it alludes to a time when women were viewed as property and violence was the socially and legally acceptable method of keeping your property in line. if you think that is a relic of the past, be glad you don't work in my field because the truth would depress you. I agree with name taking , however, as it requires you to change your identity. It should at least be mutual if done at all. Anyway, nothing has intrinsic meaning. If people no longer recognise the patriarchal connotations of the rings then those connotations cease to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Among yuppies it's less common, but it is absolutely a double standard for many individuals. Just because yuppies have cottoned onto something doesn't mean we should stop talking about it. We should keep talking about it until the full understanding of it is universal. You know what, you're absolutely right. I retract my prior reluctance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
There will be no revolution to overthrow kaputalism until the buttons of men's and women's shirts are on the same side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Obdicut, what is the value of placing the kinds of oppression you're talking about, which seem to me to be economic, legal, military etc in nature within the cultural context? Because although they have those effects, their stemming point is cultural. The mechanism of action is cultural. It's not an economic phenomenon that minority groups tend to be shut out of economic participation, but a cultural one. The economic effect alone (that there are more in the majority doing it than the minority) isn't enough to explain what happens, you also need to look at how the original, or insider group is culturally cut out from participation. quote:It seems to me that the criticism of "cultural appropriation" as a vague or useless term isn't just a blanket criticism of any linguistically defined concept, but specific to the words being used to describe this concept. It's not, though. If you think this is true, then compare it with another concept--like racism, privilege, etc--that have economic, legal, etc. effects, but are rooted in the cultural.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:I fail to see how the engagement ring ritual directly relates to domestic violence. It's like satanism in Harry Potter - repeatedly seeing the main character waving a wand and spouting bad Latin makes you more susceptible to diabolic influence. When you buy an engagement ring, you follow a misogynistic ritual imprinting your brain with hatred towards women. Reactionary propaganda is everywhere and you need constant vigilance to prevent the sin from entering your thoughts. You can never be sure enough whether a seemingly fun activity isn't a gateway towards violence and membership in a neo-nazi party. Fortunately, Don't believe false prophets telling you that rituals can lose their significance with time - this is what the white man wants you to believe. It's true, but only for minority cultures. Cultural artifacts created by the Adversary are like radioactive waste - in 5000 years they may be safe to watch from a safe distance for several minutes. Don't risk your soul to follow a tradition!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:50
|
|
