EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7892
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 19 2017 06:39 Danglars wrote: I think it's a slippery slope. And I read this forum, why is it so strange I read vice? And NYT WaPo. You gotta hear both sides. I agree and I agree. Maybe I have given Vice too little credit, but like 90% of the stuff I see them report has been pretty crap and thus it surprised me that you would spend the time reading it. | ||
|
rageprotosscheesy
36 Posts
On June 19 2017 08:43 Nevuk wrote: No one has really talked about the whole controversy with Megyn Kelly interviewing Alex Jones. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I doubt that Kelly has the journalistic chops for it to be anything but a very soft interview that will only piss people off. Let's be honest, what's the point of an interview if you're going to do nothing but interrupt the interviewee, throw nothing but softballs and never chase up on inconsistencies? That's the only value you'd get from interviewing Alex Jones, to get an idea if its just a scam (seems probable, the guy peddles everything from t-shirts to coffee) or if he actually believes what he's saying. The (leaked?) uncut interview she did with Putin is dreaaaaaadful. On June 19 2017 08:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/876513747598270464 I guess when you can't hire good lawyers from the Vault Top 10, because you've got a reputation for being a deadbeat, you get guys who can't even get their stories straight. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43248 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:21 Wegandi wrote: Cultural "Appropriation" is the new segregation. Keep every people confined to themselves. People who promote this garbage are too daft to recognize their own segregationist views lmao. Have you considered that if you have an incredibly simplistic and clear cut view on something which both doesn't impact you and is also treated as a complex subject by the people it does impact then the subject might just be a little bit more nuanced than you realize? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 19 2017 07:50 Falling wrote: I read about that push to change IP law just last week- or maybe it was on CBC radio. It doesn't make sense to me, but if anything passes through, I hope it's restricted to North American indigenous. If they want to lock down their culture, fine. We pull down every vestige of their stuff that isn't on their negotiated lands, allowing them to horde it as they please, but it's going to be a mess if appropriation is expanded to include any ethnic group at all. I would like to see IP laws go back to how the Americans first conceived of it "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Not how the Europeans have conceived of it, locking down IP long after an author could be incentivized to make more things... because they are dead. It may never pass but the arguments being made are on the wrong side- an overwhelming expansion of granting monopolies, rather than a new defence of the public domain (which is in dire need of defending.) In short, it's perhaps a good idea (don't appropriate), but using entirely the wrong tool. IP laws are for the creation of new things, not to lock away old knowledge that has been passed down for generations. you are mistaken. copyright is to protect mickey mouse in perpetuity | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote: Have you considered that if you have an incredibly simplistic and clear cut view on something which both doesn't impact you and is also treated as a complex subject by the people it does impact then the subject might just be a little bit more nuanced than you realize? Well, it might affect him. Maybe he dreams of owning and operating a Navajo-themed casino capitalizing on their cultural identity with no Navajo involved in any stage of planning or ownership and doesn't want to get sued into oblivion. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:35 TheTenthDoc wrote: Well, it might affect him. Maybe he dreams of owning and operating a Navajo-themed casino capitalizing on their cultural identity with no Navajo involved in any stage of planning or ownership and doesn't want to get sued into oblivion. The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:42 Wegandi wrote: The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. That's exactly what the cultural appropriation we're talking about is, though. The proposed UN regulation specifically looks at indigenous people/native cultures. That is one of the scenarios where the view of it as segregation falls apart, and dismissing all claims of cultural appropriation marginalizes cases like this. Edit: To be clear, this is part of why I think the Portland list and other things do a grave disservice to a legitimate concept. When people start to think of cultural appropriation as "white people doing South American things" it makes it easier to dismiss cases where there really is people profiting off of culture that the users of that culture have a right to not have shared. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:42 Wegandi wrote: The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. I'm 100% black American. Should I tell you about cultural appropriation? Culture is meant to be appreciated and shared to those who wish to learn more about said culture. It doesn't need to spread outside of the culture it originated from if they don't intend for it. Cultural appropriation is magnified because you see 10 wealthy white people profiting largely from underrepresented populations such as indigenous tribes and minorities. If that culture is protected by law, then what's the harm? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
it is both a failure and inevitable | ||
|
Falling
Canada11370 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm 100% black American. Should I tell you about cultural appropriation? Culture is meant to be appreciated and shared to those who wish to learn more about said culture. It doesn't need to spread outside of the culture it originated from if they don't intend for it. Cultural appropriation is magnified because you see 10 wealthy white people profiting largely from underrepresented populations such as indigenous tribes and minorities. If that culture is protected by law, then what's the harm? Says who? Is this universal or only relative? It matters if it is protected under copyright law because it completely freezes the development of arts and sciences and instead creates a race to lock down as many different aspects of human knowledge. What is the justification for locking down so-called tribal culture but not all ethnic cultures everywhere? Early American thinkers understood that IP laws were a granting of monopoly and rightly were suspicious of that sort of thing. IP laws were a compromise for a short period of time to give the creator time to profit from their endeavours. But ultimately they recognized that everything must enter the public domain for the development of arts and sciences. Trying to lock away bodies of knowledge through the copyright laws betrays this understanding of how humans exchange and acquire knowledge. With certain movements seeing modern science as essentially cultural- white culture and certain calls for decolonization of the sciences... let the claims of appropriation begin, but I'll stick with so-called white science. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:56 IgnE wrote: cultural appropriation as IP right is only an attempt to inscribe "culture" within the very logic that makes cultural appropriation so offensive in the first place. it is doomed to failure because the very argument against it: that it exploits marginalized peoples for the morally suspect purpose of realizing a profit, becomes reinscribed within the culture that is already being commoditized. in what sense is it a failure? culture as commodity is not culture. it would be absurd to speak of a "disney culture" except as the fantasy/nostalgia for something that is absent. the idea of reclaiming a culture as an IP, as commodity, is to accede to its complete incorporation within an acultural capitalist circuit. it signals the departure and absence of said culture. it is already "something else" it is both a failure and inevitable I'm not sure it makes the culture itself a commodity. Instead it makes "profiting off the culture" a commodity. Just as IP doesn't actually transform Mickey Mouse into a commodity, it transforms "profiting off Mickey Mouse" into a commodity. Mickey Mouse itself is an abstract concept entirely separate from whether anyone can profit off of Mickey Mouse, just as culture is an abstract concept that persists regardless of whether anyone can profit off of it. Edit: After all, once upon a time you protected your culture through going to war rather than IP law, but that did not inherently make your culture itself war (though one might argue it would warp parts of your culture, it did protect many other aspects of your culture) I could just be not following you though | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 19 2017 09:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm 100% black American. Should I tell you about cultural appropriation? Culture is meant to be appreciated and shared to those who wish to learn more about said culture. It doesn't need to spread outside of the culture it originated from if they don't intend for it. Cultural appropriation is magnified because you see 10 wealthy white people profiting largely from underrepresented populations such as indigenous tribes and minorities. If that culture is protected by law, then what's the harm? Well the obvious harm is that it essentializes culture and elevates it to something that 'a people' possess like some mystical thing. This is obviously problematic if majorities start to adopt these ideas and proclaim a 'white culture', or certain segregated spaces where culture does not 'mix'. It's a mystification of natives that sees them as 'the other' instead of accepting that culture is nothing mystical that everybody can take part in, share in and change. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 19 2017 10:06 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm not sure it makes the culture itself a commodity. Instead it makes "profiting off the culture" a commodity. Just as IP doesn't actually transform Mickey Mouse into a commodity, it transforms "profiting off Mickey Mouse" into a commodity. Mickey Mouse itself is an abstract concept entirely separate from whether anyone can profit off of Mickey Mouse, just as culture is an abstract concept that persists regardless of whether anyone can profit off of it. Edit: After all, once upon a time you protected your culture through going to war rather than IP law, but that did not inherently make your culture itself war (though one might argue it would warp parts of your culture, it did protect many other aspects of your culture) I could just be not following you though i agree that this is war. i disagree that culture is an "abstract concept" | ||
|
KwarK
United States43248 Posts
In the West we're not so deliberate about our ethnic cleansing, not these days at least. However there are still suppressed cultures, people whose cultural identity has been devastated by the loss of their lands, the loss of any standing their language might have, their children being forced to treat their language as a second language, the loss of their traditional income sources and way of life and so forth. And again, like religion for Tibetans, they have just a few areas in which their cultural identity survives. And so when Disney comes along and says "hey, we think that traditional story you've been telling is pretty neat so we're going to make a movie about it, only we think it'd be better if the main character was a talking bear and if he had a headdress which gave him wishes", it's pretty destructive. They're not doing it as a deliberate part of a genocide the way China is with Tibet, but they're still doing it and the fact they're just doing it for the money doesn't reduce the harm. All cultural appropriation comes down to is allowing the people whose cultural identities are under threat to have a degree of control over the use and presentation of what they have left. It doesn't mean you can't wear lederhosen and get drunk, Bavaria can take care of itself, Germany is a dominant culture, they're not about to disappear. But if Disney and the Cochiti were to each present rival versions of a Cochiti myth there isn't really any doubt that Disney would replace the Cochiti version, so we ask that they respectfully pick on people big enough to fight back. That is of course assuming that you don't subscribe to the Randian philosophy that it's a good thing that the Native Americans were wiped out because in the cultural darwinism contest they were found to be inferior and needed to be exterminated to clear room for the more successful European culture. If you subscribe to that then cultural appropriation is just stopping the victors from picking the bones of their conquests for their rightfully earned scraps. I'm assuming you don't but you are a hardcore libertarian so maybe you do. | ||
| ||
