|
Effectronica posted:Hey, can you answer that dude's question? You seem like you might know. AFAIK the only things that get you probated in D&D these days are helldumping Zeitgeist and being SedanChair. And it's easier to get a time out for shitposting in GBS than here if you are any indication. IDK Cole hope that helps. edit: Oh nm you found a third case.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If cultural diversity is a public good, a pragmatic case can be made for purposefully avoiding actions which would have the effect of diluting the cultural uniqueness of minority cultures. On the other hand, if the extinction of a minority culture is inevitable, appropriation might be the only way elements of that culture survive. So if we posit there's a sort of value in preserving minority cultures as something exotic and separate? But then haven't we committed ourselves to fetishizing minority cultures (as exotic, more desirable than our own however we define that) and isn't that what leads to appropriation in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Here's a good joke- I'm going to tear off your arm and shove it up your rear end. No you're not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:48
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So if we posit there's a sort of value in preserving minority cultures as something exotic and separate? But then haven't we committed ourselves to fetishizing minority cultures (as exotic, more desirable than our own however we define that) and isn't that what leads to appropriation in the first place? Does this apply to endangered animals? Do you go around telling people that the rhino must be driven to extinction, or else we're fetishizing it?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Effectroinca thinks people from different cultures are animals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:53
|
|
Miltank posted:Effectroinca thinks people from different cultures are animals. SJW trolls make snide remarks because they're fat and can't even find their genitals anymore. 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, focusing on the trivial aspects of cultural appropriation--like wearing a sari or not--doesn't erase the larger issues of cultural appropriation, just like focusing on trivial aspects of sexism doesn't erase the larger problems of sexism. So does sexism have trivial aspects whatsoever? And if it doesn't, does that tell something about the utility of cultural appropriation as a term?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wearing a sari is a trivial issue, I'm never going to look at someone wearing a sari and care whatsoever about it. You aren't the important person in the scenario, though. And sure, sexism has trivial issues, like the example of opening doors. And yet again i'm wondering what the hell anyone means by 'useful'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:So does sexism have trivial aspects whatsoever? And if it doesn't, does that tell something about the utility of cultural appropriation as a term? One might imagine sexism has many trivial expressions, just like ageism, or a bias for tall people, or whatever else. A better question would be whether cultural appropriation has any non-trivial expressions and I think the answer is pretty well no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You aren't the important person in the scenario, though. Who is the important person in the scenario, exactly? Is it whoever decided they were offended?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:09
|
|
Obdicut posted:You aren't the important person in the scenario, though. "Useful" means something that they can't pretend is OK, inevitable, or really the work of some other phenomenon.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Does this apply to endangered animals? Do you go around telling people that the rhino must be driven to extinction, or else we're fetishizing it? unlike cultures the rhino does not exist with the sole purpose of serving the needs and wants of people~ seriously though effectronica, you would make an excellent exhibit a in a dick dorkins talk on memetic evolution (the culture being the meme and you being its means to ensure its propagation) Effectronica posted:SJW trolls make snide remarks because they're fat and can't even find their genitals anymore. literal truth 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
wateroverfire posted:Who is the important person in the scenario, exactly? Is it whoever decided they were offended? Whoever was offended, yeah. Not who 'decided' they were offended, that's kinda ridiculous. Effectronica posted:"Useful" means something that they can't pretend is OK, inevitable, or really the work of some other phenomenon. You get that I think you're a troll, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:11
|
|
blowfish posted:unlike cultures the rhino does not exist with the sole purpose of serving the needs and wants of people~ Hmm, interesting fascism you have there. Obdicut posted:Whoever was offended, yeah. Not who 'decided' they were offended, that's kinda ridiculous. Well, if you want to discount something because you think the person is always insincere, that's your prerogative. You should probably apply it more generally, though.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hmm, interesting fascism you have there. i am currently stroking my fascism, it's very hard and erect
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
I think you're a horrifically lovely poster, basically. So don't bother talking to me. Actually, I'll probably just be putting you on ignore, so you can (hah)ignore this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:15
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think you're a horrifically lovely poster, basically. So don't bother talking to me. Actually, I'll probably just be putting you on ignore, so you can (hah)ignore this. I think you're engaged in a futile struggle and that trolling, insincerity, etc. are the only real responses to people like wateroverfire in a situation such as this, and you don't have the means to shock him into behaving like a decent human being.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And sure, sexism has trivial issues, like the example of opening doors. quote:And yet again i'm wondering what the hell anyone means by 'useful'. The whole reason for this is, as you have pointed out, cultural appropriation encompasses both trivial and non-trivial acts, for me to care about something that is cultural appropriation, you have to say "Foo is cultural appropriation and is bad in a non-trivial way", and if that's the case, why is that sentence better than "Foo is bad in a non-trivial way"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see this as trivial, if someone is opening doors for women on the basis that they believe women are too weak to open their own doors, that person is an idiot and needs an education. That's not why the average person does it, though. quote:I suppose someone might open doors for women just because it is traditional, but that act doesn't seem sexist, the tradition might have sexist origins, but again those origins aren't trivial. The act is sexist: It treats women differently than men. It is trivial. That the origins aren't trivial really doesn't matter. quote:I already engaged with you on this and you apparently didn't like it. We use words because communicating concepts helps us achieve goals. There are a variety of goals that words can help with, but there is no scenario where you say "Foo is cultural appropriation" and I care. "Foo is sexist" ok, "foo" is bad that's useful. "Foo tastes like pizza" ok, "foo" is delicious that's useful. Oh, okay. To you it's not useful. To me it is. So... what's your problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The act is sexist: It treats women differently than men. It is trivial. That the origins aren't trivial really doesn't matter. quote:Oh, okay. To you it's not useful. To me it is. So... what's your problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Whoever was offended, yeah. Not who 'decided' they were offended, that's kinda ridiculous. Idk man. Lots of people decide they want to be indignant for reasons other than genuine outrage. Of many people who are genuinely offended it might be concluded that they ought to loosen up, that the world is not all about them, etc. Why is giving offense such a big offense? Can you convince me I should care about someone's butthurt for its own sake?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Idk man. Lots of people decide they want to be indignant for reasons other than genuine outrage. Of many people who are genuinely offended it might be concluded that they ought to loosen up, that the world is not all about them, etc. You share the globe with 7 billion people. That's actually enough to get you to stop and listen. That's your fault if you don't feel other people are worthwhile sharing your time, manners, and knowledge on earth with. That's this loving forum in a nutshell - quit caring for people and your environment, it makes life harder to deal with when you have to be social and actually remember you aren't the center of the universe, not even your own universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should spend You never know, not around these parts anyway. You do spend an inordinate amount of time griping about these people... I open doors for women. Then again, I also open doors for men. If I am going through a door and I see someone behind me thinking of doing the same I hold it open. I do it dozens of times at work because there's a bunch of people moving in and out of offices and classrooms all the time. I eagerly await the accusations of being a genderhitler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:58
|
|
and rereg as Poeslaw IMO.
|
What does sexism mean in the context of our perceptions of it? Racism in this context refers to the false perception that 'race' exists, but this doesn't seem to apply to sexism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Armani posted:You share the globe with 7 billion people. That's actually enough to get you to stop and listen. There's caring and there's caring, and on a planet of 7 billion people odds are one of them is going to be pissed off at you over something whether it's real or imagined. I'm not uncaring but honestly part of living in real life is constructing some boundries and you are not responsible for someone's hurt feelings just because they decide you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So if we posit there's a sort of value in preserving minority cultures as something exotic and separate? But then haven't we committed ourselves to fetishizing minority cultures (as exotic, more desirable than our own however we define that) and isn't that what leads to appropriation in the first place? We needent conceive of minority cultures as exotic or superior to assign value to their existence. As an analogy, California condors aren't superior to other birds, and they aren't exotic, but their extinction and replacement by other species would not be a good or ambivalent change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Treating women differently than men is clearly not sufficient for something to be sexist, there's a variety of contexts where different treatment is completely appropriate. If sexism did include anytime women were treated differently than men, then it would include trivial instances, which would degrade the usefulness of the word. There's nothing appropriate about opening doors for women, though. quote:If that's the case, I think you are an ineffective communicator, and everyone would be better off, yourself included, if your communication improved. What are you making this judgement on? I'm really confused. Try to communicate what you're saying a bit better. wateroverfire posted:Idk man. Lots of people decide they want to be indignant for reasons other than genuine outrage. Of many people who are genuinely offended it might be concluded that they ought to loosen up, that the world is not all about them, etc. It might, but it might also be concluded that doing something dumb and offensive could just be cut out because it's dumb and offensive. Like calling a sports team "Redskins" or claiming that some crystal has Native American Healing Powers. quote:Why is giving offense such a big offense? Can you convince me I should care about someone's butthurt for its own sake? Giving offense isn't a big offense. It's a scaleable offense. If, for example, someone dug up someone's grave and desecrated it, that would offend people who cared about that person. You could tell them just to get over it, that it's just rotting meat, but it's not going to be really effective, because humans are humans. If you don't want to give a poo poo about offending people, you can behave that way, and the result would be people who are offended by you get upset at you. That's the worst-case scenario. If you don't care, if you don't give a poo poo about their emotions, then there's nothing anyone can do to make you empathetic or feel any obligation or sense of decency towards them. You get to choose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We needent conceive of minority cultures as exotic or superior to assign value to their existence. As an analogy, California condors aren't superior to other birds, and they aren't exotic, but their extinction and replacement by other species would not be a good or ambivalent change. That's an interesting and contentious statement all on its own but I think condors and cultures are not the same. The people participating in a cuture are the ones changing it. The culture has no life or significance independant of them. If people want to do things differently who are you, or I, to say that they shouldn't? Or that they can't? The Lakota culture isn't dying out because some "medicine men" fleece tourists with supposedy authentic rituals, or because white people who have never met a Lakota copy traditional dress for Halloween. It's dying because to young people it's less relevant. They prefer to participate, to the extent they have to choose, in the modern culture that surrounds them. That's not a bad thing. It's just a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There's nothing appropriate about opening doors for women, though. I'll try to help you out here. Gender discrimination has trivial instances, a person who gender discriminates when selecting romantic partners for instance. Gender discrimination is sometimes bad, and our society is aware of this to the point that our court system has built a set of analyses for determining when both the government and people are allowed to gender discriminate. Without that framework (or a similar one) the concept of gender discrimination is useless. "Phil is engaging in gender discrimination" Ok. "Phil is violating the Civil Rights Act" That's bad. It's ok to have a category that contains trivial instances, but there needs to be a mechanism to distinguish the trivial from non-trivial. It's turns out you have proposed such a mechanism: Obdicut posted:Don't be an rear end in a top hat, have respect for stuff that's important to other people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The act is sexist: It treats women differently than men. It is trivial. That the origins aren't trivial really doesn't matter. Cervical cancer also treats women differently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There's nothing appropriate about opening doors for women, though. Yet, D&D person of note Obdicut feels perfectly within his privilege to speak for women. They sure are lucky to have a progressive champion like you to tell them what's appropriate and what isn't so they don't have to worry their pretty little heads over it! You disgusting loving sexist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so you agree that there is some unnamed factor that makes it inappropriate, can you tell me what that is? Because I'm pretty certain any factor that makes something inappropriate is non-trivial. It's inappropriate because there's no reason to hold doors for women but not for men. I'm not sure what's challenging you about this. quote:Gender discrimination has trivial instances, a person who gender discriminates when selecting romantic partners for instance. That's not a good example at all. In fact, that his a horrible example. There is nothing good about that example, nothing trivial about it, etc. You almost couldn't have picked a worse example. quote:Gender discrimination is sometimes bad, and our society is aware of this to the point that our court system has built a set of analyses for determining when both the government and people are allowed to gender discriminate. Without that framework (or a similar one) the concept of gender discrimination is useless. No, even if we didn't have the laws in place, the concept of gender discrimination is useful. For example, before we had laws about gender discrimination in place, the concept was useful for saying "Boy, we should have some laws about gender discrimination". Maybe you're just communicating really ineffectively here. quote:The problem is that this is universally applicable. If we adopt this standard, why would we ever care if something is cultural appropriation or not when applying it? If it fails this standard, it's bad. There's no need to investigate who has the rights to which cultures, because even if they did have the rights (that is, it's not appropriation), it is still bad. I don't care if you care about the concept 'cultural appropriation' when deciding not to be an rear end in a top hat and sell something as "100% authentic Native American blanket" when you know it's not. If you know it's wrong, that's fine. I don't know what you mean bout the 'rights' to which cultures. Gantolandon posted:Cervical cancer also treats women differently. Not really. If a man has a cervix, he can get cervical cancer. Pauline Kael posted:Yet, D&D person of note Obdicut feels perfectly within his privilege to speak for women. They sure are lucky to have a progressive champion like you to tell them what's appropriate and what isn't so they don't have to worry their pretty little heads over it! You disgusting loving sexist. I'm not speaking for women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
So you're a liar too. Opening doors for women is inappropriate. That's what you said. You seem, in your pedantry, to have gotten your wires crossed. Stop speaking for women. In fact, just stop speaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
I am closing this thread (not because it is incredibly bad but because the side whose argument I agree with is losing, natch).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
