|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
"I am totally unable to answer someone's objections, so I will use arguments of authority, call them racist in six different ways, compare them to incels, and accuse them of not discussing in good faith."
Level of discussion, 0.
For a fucking change.
|
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
|
Norway28614 Posts
On July 01 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
ya GH this is a non-answer. The answer 'it's difficult to determine' is fine, but that doesn't go together with 'white people need to be quiet', especially not when white people are actively asking (trying to educate themselves). We shouldn't pretend people haven't detailed the differences then should we? What people are asking for aren't guidelines about how to be better about not contributing to cultural appropriation (or racism, or sexual misconduct, etc) what they are prodding for is a specific line to dispute. Attribution, fluency in cultural practices, placing things in context, listening to people when they say you're wrong even if they can't articulate to your satisfaction the justification, just to name a handful. It's difficult to discuss though when the objections to a politics opposing cultural appropriation range from "they shouldn't complain", to "I have complaints about not specific examples", to "in this very specific case I want a hard and fast ruling (as if it was even my place to make such a ruling).
I think your first paragraph is wrong. I mean, not 'for everybody', but for most of the people involved in the ongoing discussion right in this very thread, I genuinely believe the intention is 'I don't want to contribute to cultural appropriation in a way that is perceived as negative by people belonging to the origin-culture, however I also don't want to live a life of cultural segregation'. The reason being that we're subject to stuff like people claiming that a white woman wearing a traditional chinese dress (because she thought it looked really good) is cultural appropriation, and to me, that's something I can't get behind. However if I'm subject to a person dressing in a traditional native american outfit, even if their intention is 'I think this looks really good', I will be more inclined to think some version of 'this isn't cool'. Where's the distinction here? Just power dynamics? (I can see how this is a big factor, tbh. )
I get that there are bad faith actors in this discussion (and I see the parallels both regarding racism 'can't I ask what country someone's parents are from' and metoo 'am I not allowed to flirt?'), but I don't see them present in this thread at this point and in this discussion.
This is exactly why I asked you for specific examples of what entails cultural appropriation and what differs it from cultural appreciation in my opening post on this topic (whereas you countered by asking me for specifics rather than providing them). This is literally me trying to educate myself on the matter by getting a non-white person's point of view. I'm not asking you for you to take the role of the ultimate arbiter, I'm asking you for your opinion so that I can take that into account when further developing my own opinion. I dunno if this qualifies as Freirian, but I'm well versed in Habermas and try my darnedest to adhere to his principles of deliberation, there's no bad faith or attempting to find inconsistencies so that I can ignore the entire concept involved..
|
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
That makes sense, thanks 
|
On July 01 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"I am totally unable to answer someone's objections, so I will use arguments of authority, call them racist in six different ways, compare them to incels, and accuse them of not discussing in good faith."
Level of discussion, 0.
For a fucking change.
I don't care about what music you perform. Couple of the points of the grave robbing example was that 1. the status quo is super f'd up, and 2. Which classical music you play and what level of appreciation you have for its contributories is not really what cultural appropriation is worried about. So your argument is so selfishly framed I can't relate.
Like the guys worried about how they'll hit on girls in the era of MeToo or that everything they say or do could be racist because of vague definitions and overzealous BLM supporters. It seems to be intentionally missing the point.
@drone there's a lot of people that have said it a lot of ways but what is constantly reiterated is that expecting it to be served up on a platter is part of the problem.
If people were coming at this from a perspective of scouring the internet and libraries and having found nothing more than what they came with asked these questions that'd be one thing. But they can't even be bothered to use the site search function.
|
On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"I am totally unable to answer someone's objections, so I will use arguments of authority, call them racist in six different ways, compare them to incels, and accuse them of not discussing in good faith."
Level of discussion, 0.
For a fucking change. I don't care about what music you perform. Couple of the points of the grave robbing example was that 1. the status quo is super f'd up, and 2. Which classical music you play and what level of appreciation you have for its contributories is not really what cultural appropriation is worried about. So your argument is so selfishly framed I can't relate. Like the guys worried about how they'll hit on girls in the era of MeToo or that everything they say or do could be racist because of vague definitions and overzealous BLM supporters. It seems to be intentionally missing the point.
Here is the real question, GH, why do you so consistently need to be such a fucking douchebag?
I came here to answer someone who was not you and I use my field because, yeah, culture is my business you see. So I am interested. And the discussion is pretty darn interesting, whether it's Inge answers, or Drone's or whoever. And when you started posting, I was really ready to engage in a civil dialogue and hear your take on the question even though the three last times we have exchanged you have been such a complete douche. But then again, you come with your shitty attitude, and you transform what could be a nice discussion into a shitshow of insults, insinuation and of course, you don't give answers to anything because it's so much more fun to instead attack people. As you always do.
It's a pity because I like this thread, and I like the people on this thread and you make it a genuinely unpleasant experience. Just talk like a civilized person if that's not too much to ask.
Christ sake.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Northern Ireland24659 Posts
On July 01 2020 07:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress. That makes sense, thanks
My own personal take, worded much better by Igne here.
Had difficulty articulating it, especially with your examples from the classical world. I’m a relative pleb though aware of your references, didn’t realise you played in an orchestra, the types you come across in TL!
You had used the word commodification in your previous utterances on the subject, which did spark a certain realisation as to my particular position. Specifically the commodification/commercialisation of art.
What one chooses to do with what they are choosing to take from another culture is important too, of course heavily subjective.
In extreme terms there is quite a difference between taking ideas and motifs because you think it’ll improve your art in some way vs just lifting stuff because you can make money doing something that those from that cultural background cannot in the same manner.
Personally my bar is set very high as to what would hypothetically transgress it, equally those are my own particular sensibilities.
|
On July 01 2020 07:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"I am totally unable to answer someone's objections, so I will use arguments of authority, call them racist in six different ways, compare them to incels, and accuse them of not discussing in good faith."
Level of discussion, 0.
For a fucking change. I don't care about what music you perform. Couple of the points of the grave robbing example was that 1. the status quo is super f'd up, and 2. Which classical music you play and what level of appreciation you have for its contributories is not really what cultural appropriation is worried about. So your argument is so selfishly framed I can't relate. Like the guys worried about how they'll hit on girls in the era of MeToo or that everything they say or do could be racist because of vague definitions and overzealous BLM supporters. It seems to be intentionally missing the point. Here is the real question, GH, why do you so consistently need to be such a fucking douchebag?
I feel that way about people too, but if I expressed it like you just did I'd be punished pretty severely and somehow people still think it has nothing to do with the potential offensiveness of their posts to the people less bold than me when it comes to speaking up about it. People also seem to believe this has nothing to do with a difference of political opinion between me and some of the members of moderation that took years to be convinced "n***er jokes" weren't okay (don't think that was Drone afaik)
I came here to answer someone who was not you and I use my field because, yeah, culture is my business you see. So I am interested. And the discussion is pretty darn interesting, whether it's Inge answers, or Drone's or whoever. And when you started posting, I was really ready to engage in a civil dialogue even though the three last times we have exchanged you have been such a douche. But then again, you come with your shitty attitude, and you transform what could be a nice discussion into a shitshow of insults, insinuation and of course, no answers to anything. As you always do.
It's a pity because I like this thread, and I like the people on this thread. Just talk like a civilized person if that's not too much to ask.
Christ sake.
This stuff isn't a curiosity or a performance for me, it's a life or death struggle for liberation for me and the people even more oppressed than I am and you guys treat it like an intellectual exercise where people aren't dying by the millions as a result (at least in part) of this lack of intensity regarding the severity of the status quo and the immediacy of the demand for justice.
On July 01 2020 07:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress. That makes sense, thanks
This is what I've been pressing IgnE and Farv to do since they are very capable and when they say it you guys are less likely to immediately reject it. Also it's demonstrative of turning supportive words into supportive actions in a space they already exist in and have credibility.
|
On July 01 2020 05:17 Simberto wrote:
There are very clear consequences to voting for Trump, though. Trump made this pandemic worse. I don't think there is any way to dispute that.
And it was utterly obvious from the beginning that Trump is completely unfit to be president. This is what i mean with "i don't get it". Why would you vote for someone who is like Trump is. Incompetent, corrupt, boorish, arrogant, antiintellectual, racist, and just generally an asshole and a schoolyard bully. None of that is hidden. It is all right in the open. And yet people vote for him. America decided that it could not do better than Trump as president. I think that that is absurd, and sad, and you are reaping the very real consequences of that by having a Trump when you would need a competent president.
I do not say that i do not understand your feeling sad for being called a racist. I absolutely understand that. I would also feel sad if i were called a racist. I am a bit confused on doubling down on voting for a racist again out of spite of being called a racist, and i doubt that the person exists who says that they vote for trump, but doesn't actually want to vote for trump, but then still votes for trump because they have been called racist for wanting to vote for trump.
A really effective strategy to not be called a racist is to stop acting like a racist. If the republican party stopped trying to suppress the black vote wherever it has any chance of doing so, maybe less people would call them racist. If the republican party stopped supporting cops who kill black people, maybe less people would call them racist. If they stopped flying confederate flags, maybe less people would call them racist.
Instead, you are here and claim that if only people would stop calling them racist, they would immediately stop doing all the racist things, would stop voting for Trumps, and would generally do stuff which is good for the country. I find that to be a bit questionable.
I also don't claim to have a complete view of american politics. Throughout the 2016 election, i was 100% convinced that Trump would lose horribly. Surely no population would elect someone like that? I have been proven wrong, and i still fail to see any appeal in Trump, let alone enough for a relevant amount of people to vote for him. I have thus come to the conclusion that american politics is really strange, and pretty far removed from anything a rational person can understand. I hope that you find a way out of that, because it is really bad for your country and the people within it.
You can not honestly claim that having a competent president instead of a trump would not have helped you weather this pandemic a lot better. And that is what you risk whenever you elect someone like that for president. Something relevant might happen during his term, and he will be completely unfit to deal with it. Yes, during times of low-crisis, one can afford incompetent leadership for a while. Competent leadership is still better, but it is not as catastrophic. During a time of strife, having an incompetent leader can ruin a country. Which is why you should never elect someone like Trump, even if people call you mean names.
Nobody competent was in the running then, and nobody competent is in the running now. That complicates the choice and calculus of fitness.
And to agree with you partially, it is irrational to expect the people you called racist, instead of understanding their choice, to fear being called racist a second time. The best choice is to rebel against the political philosophy and language that made them settle on such an idiotic course in the first place. And if they have some cockamamie justification for distrust and division, just ignore them: it was never about a united country for them, it was about winning.
|
Northern Ireland24659 Posts
On July 01 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"I am totally unable to answer someone's objections, so I will use arguments of authority, call them racist in six different ways, compare them to incels, and accuse them of not discussing in good faith."
Level of discussion, 0.
For a fucking change. I don't care about what music you perform. Couple of the points of the grave robbing example was that 1. the status quo is super f'd up, and 2. Which classical music you play and what level of appreciation you have for its contributories is not really what cultural appropriation is worried about. So your argument is so selfishly framed I can't relate. Like the guys worried about how they'll hit on girls in the era of MeToo or that everything they say or do could be racist because of vague definitions and overzealous BLM supporters. It seems to be intentionally missing the point. Here is the real question, GH, why do you so consistently need to be such a fucking douchebag? I feel that way about people too, but if I expressed it like you just did I'd be punished pretty severely and somehow people still think it has nothing to do with the potential offensiveness of their posts to the people less bold than me when it comes to speaking up about it. People also seem to believe this has nothing to do with a difference of political opinion between me and some of the members of moderation that took years to be convinced "n***er jokes" weren't okay (don't think that was Drone afaik) Show nested quote +
I came here to answer someone who was not you and I use my field because, yeah, culture is my business you see. So I am interested. And the discussion is pretty darn interesting, whether it's Inge answers, or Drone's or whoever. And when you started posting, I was really ready to engage in a civil dialogue even though the three last times we have exchanged you have been such a douche. But then again, you come with your shitty attitude, and you transform what could be a nice discussion into a shitshow of insults, insinuation and of course, no answers to anything. As you always do.
It's a pity because I like this thread, and I like the people on this thread. Just talk like a civilized person if that's not too much to ask.
Christ sake.
This stuff isn't a curiosity or a performance for me, it's a life or death struggle for liberation for me and the people even more oppressed than I am and you guys treat it like an intellectual exercise where people aren't dying by the millions as a result (at least in part) of this lack of intensity regarding the severity of the status quo and the immediacy of the demand for justice.
That seems a tad hyperbolic, there are many issues I’d agree with you framing in such a manner, including your example of the n word not being tolerated. Such things feed into a much uglier, destructive supersystem, fine I get that.
Cultural appropriation and what makes it distinct from merely exchanging cultural ideas and meshing things I don’t think fits that remit and is being pretty reasonably discussed here.
What is the dividing line between colonialism and post-colonialist effects and the exchange of culture on more mutual grounds and where is it?
|
On July 01 2020 07:27 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress. That makes sense, thanks My own personal take, worded much better by Igne here. Had difficulty articulating it, especially with your examples from the classical world. I’m a relative pleb though aware of your references, didn’t realise you played in an orchestra, the types you come across in TL! You had used the word commodification in your previous utterances on the subject, which did spark a certain realisation as to my particular position. Specifically the commodification/commercialisation of art. What one chooses to do with what they are choosing to take from another culture is important too, of course heavily subjective. In extreme terms there is quite a difference between taking ideas and motifs because you think it’ll improve your art in some way vs just lifting stuff because you can make money doing something that those from that cultural background cannot in the same manner. Personally my bar is set very high as to what would hypothetically transgress it, equally those are my own particular sensibilities.
Yes, I understand it makes perfect sense.
Of course the problem is that it's all extremely subjective, as everything regarding quality and appreciation when it comes to the arts.
As an example, the song "All by myself" from Celine Dion steals and in my opinion absolutely rapes one of the greatest jewels of Russian musical litterature, the slow movement from Rachmaninov second concerto. I find it both sad and offensive and a complete rip off, for the only redeeming quality of the song is the stolen part. But it's my take, and a lot of people absolutely love the song.
Very hard to tell if it's a shameful rip off to make a fortune out of someone infinitely more talented, or a respectful use artistically motivated.
|
On July 01 2020 05:32 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 04:57 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 03:35 Simberto wrote:On July 01 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 02:26 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 01 2020 02:03 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 01:36 Wombat_NI wrote:
That’s quite a lot to unpack at once Mr Danglars. ‘I never fully understand the whole he's-stupid about face to he-read-understood-did-it-intentionally, but I'm not going to puzzle for hours trying to understand.’
I’m not really seeing an about-face, at least within here. Trump can behave incredibly stupidly, i.e. some of his ludicrous pronouncements around corona, and be fully aware of what he’s doing in other spheres, i.e. dogwhistling.
One doesn’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to know that ‘white power’ has extremely negative connotations and history attached to it over and above other more plausibly loaded framings like ‘all lives matter’.
Biden’s not saying a whole lot on a whole lot these days, especially stuff the ostensible left feels are important issues, that he’s not commenting on statue defacement isn’t much of a priority, but yes he should have some position on that and be asked about it too.
As per the religious liberty ruling I’ll have to do more reading on what the case was about and return with my thoughts then. I do see the “obvious dogwhistling” and “obviously oblivious” as mainly a matter of special pleading. Trump’s tweeted all manner of idiotic stuff, and he likes all kind of counter protesters to the woke iconoclasts of the moment. It fits with retweeting it for the meta point of response (and Trump’s big about punching back in whatever stupid way he can), and taking it down once someone points out the white power words. So I’ll agree to disagree with you there. Biden is still running for president, and his campaigns silence on all kinds of matters of the day is self defeating. He has a heavy lift to prove himself mentally able to string sentences together into a point, and hiding from the public eye except for small, select appearances aids that narrative. And reporters praise his genius just laying low, if anybody was wondering how the media would respond to 4-8 years of Biden. What are you disagreeing with? It fits entirely with my criticism of how Trump uses Twitter as a form of ‘owning the libs’ regardless of what villainry it emboldens. Specifically the second point, you can do the former without retweeting guys shouting ‘white power’, be it careless or calculating the inclusion of such rhetoric in the Twitter output is just generally a bad move, both for general decency but increasingly in terms of self-interested political aggrandisement. Even centrist types who’ve previously given Trump the benefit of the doubt re dogwhistling are changing their tune. I haven’t altered my arguments or put them forth more convincingly, he’s just throwing so much of it out that he’s doing it to himself. The question is the usefulness of retweets like that to support arguments that Trump is a racist/supports such and such policies because he is a racist. You can read back ten or twenty pages to see arguments in that forum. You personally observe some centrists changing their mind on Trump and dogwhistling, so it shows you're aware of it. What you're transitioning to, that Trump's careless speech and disregard for social customs about how to talk ends up giving cover to actual racists and white supremacists, is quite another thing. I've said the same about Democrats that called McCain and Romney racists. They don't actually intend to further causes they don't support, but they actually advance them and degrade the discourse such that somebody like Trump is necessary to show the fruits of their tireless labor. The example of Trump, and hopefully the re-election of Trump, may roll back the "educated class" liberal use of racist/sexist and political correctness norms, seeing what the backlash and rejection of such norms will take. Maybe I'm digressing a little bit with that comment. Even take the video. Protesters in The Village are facing counter-protesters and are jeering at the Trump supporters by calling them racist. What to do when people call you racist for supporting President Trump? Well, one reaction is to heighten the meaninglessness of that term "Oh yeah? You're gonna go with that? Ok, White Power, f***ers." Highlight absurdity by being even more absurd. Using more modern language, you may call it rejecting the entire system of shouting racist at stuff you don't like. The presidential retweet should never have happened, and was rightly taken down, but it's no more actual support for white supremacy than defund the police is actual police reform. I can get behind your general decency argument, which is why I couldn't support Trump in the only presidential primary that mattered. It should also hurt Trump as it probably has. It's just the people that go one step further that I have a problem with, and really want to play special pleader with Trump to go from stupid to planned whenever it fits their conclusions. The conclusion is known, and the evidence is picked such to fit the conclusion. And, as if Biden's team reads this thread, Biden took questions on the statues and actually made the distinction between confederate statues and founding fathers and columbus. That's the kind of move he needs to get in the habit of making if he wants to defeat Trump. It would be stronger if he outright condemned the lawless teardowns, but I think people will accept what he said today. Hillary had a higher lead over Trump at this point of the election season than Biden has over Trump. And contrary to last time, Biden doesn't have such a large disgust reaction as Hillary, and Trump has eroded support in suburbs and evangelicals. I really hate that argument. This is coming from the people who "call a spade a spade", "tell it like it is", and who hate all the "snowflakes" who need "save spaces". Yet if you call someone tweeting racist stuff and saying racist stuff a racist, that is suddenly really problematic. I think the group of people who get angry about you calling Trump a racist, and who thus change who they vote for to Trump consists of roughly zero people. It is a sad state of affairs, and i generally dislike the hightened level of partisanship. But Trump really is just that bad. And i cannot understand people voting for him. It is just absurd. I can understand people voting for our German conservative party. I do not agree with them, but i can understand them, and i am pretty sure that i can have a reasonable conversation with them despite political differences. Probably not with our far-right AfD guys, though. But Trump...i just don't get it. I don't understand how you can view him, and honestly come to the conclusion that he is not everything people say about him. He doesn't hide it. He openly says, does and tweets racist stuff. He openly says, does and tweets corrupt stuff. He openly says, does and tweets incompetent stuff. And at this point, i simply do not see that mystical person who would stop voting for Trump if people just stopped being mean to him for voting for Trump, which Danglars claims to be a relevant amount of people. The people who are willing to vote for Trump right now, after everything we have seen, will not change that, no matter how nice you are to them, how careful you are to tiptoe around their sensibilities. This whole "Oh no, now you did it, you called me a racist, i totally would have listened to you, but now i won't and i will vote for Trump" thing is just smokes and mirrors. Anyone saying that would have voted for Trump, no matter what you say to them. We can just hope that there are not enough of them in the few states that matter. I do not think that we should go around and call everyone voting for Trump a racist. A reasonably large group of them probably are, but some might not be. You should absolutely say that Trump is a racist. Because he doesn't really hide that, at all. And Trumpists don't really show a lot of willingness to compromise, or to talk about issues. As much as this talks about the meta argument, and cites nothing, and treats dismissively and derisively the explanation that “racist” has been purged of all meaning, having been used for all Republicans candidates for the last three presidential elections, I’d say you had better start liking the argument or staying ignorant about right-of-center American politics. History doesn’t begin with Trump. I can only feel so much sympathy for your “I just don’t get it” if your posture remains as described in this post. And I’m doubly glad that I responded to Wombat’s post to hear precisely the reaction I wagered. Thankfully, this is a free country, so anyone here can call whatever national trend as “mythical” or “I just don’t get it” and vote on whatever they believe to be true. It must be some act of divine providence that the immediate post following leads with “Every Trump voter did a racist thing voting for Trump..” hmm so strange about citizens rebelled against unfair and capricious slurs in ways I don’t approve of. So strange. Racism hasn’t been purged of all meaning, people are just more aware of the forms it can take, the bar previously being something akin to if you’re not caught on tape calling someone the n word then you’re not racist. As to whether it’s been unfairly applied to people or not in the past, why does that necessitate a doubling down when the glove absolutely does fit in this particular PotUS’ case. How is it a meta argument to fight against overreaching claims of racism until you’re defending actual racist behaviour to ‘own the libs’ and, conservatives will subsequently claim that the left are unfair and don’t want to try to understand them? It’s a version of the boy who cried wolf, except the villagers came running every time and helped him slay the wolf. There is no comeuppance here for crying wolf if your political opponents double down to such an extent that even the skeptical centre have serious qualms.
These new “forms it can take” end up being bunk or being a redefinition of the term that essentially erases the stigma. That’s exactly how I characterize statements like “if you voted for Trump, you had to be at least a little racist” or “everyone is a little racist.” This disagreement between us is at the heart of the modern clash of cultures, but I have some hope that you’ll come around in time. Usually you have to be personally called a racist or white supremacist over something minor about three times to start the process.
I likewise disagree with the glove. It just doesn’t fit. You and others are being far too selective and demand to see a through-line when none exists.
The meta argument I referred to isn’t approximated by your restatement. I’ll have to reread my original post on a bigger screen and see if it was a big enough point to repeat.
|
Norway28614 Posts
On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
@drone there's a lot of people that have said it a lot of ways but what is constantly reiterated is that expecting it to be served up on a platter is part of the problem.
If people were coming at this from a perspective of scouring the internet and libraries and having found nothing more than what they came with asked these questions that'd be one thing. But they can't even be bothered to use the site search function.
I mean I did read (part skim to be fair) the entire wikipedia on cultural appropriation when we first had the discussion, but for one, wikipedia is notoriously white. It's just that, at least to me, specific examples make the discussion a bit less abstract.. As reiterated several times I don't have any issues with (in fact, I'd say I'm a very strong and consistent proponent of) the lack of clear boundaries or the concept of dialogue as a method of achieving greater mutual understanding. I also come to this from the perspective of a sociology teacher, one that envisions that this is a discussion I might end up leading with a future class of almost entirely white Norwegian high school students, and in that context, having specific examples that I can ask them to relate to to help facilitate discussion is immensely useful..
|
On July 01 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"I am totally unable to answer someone's objections, so I will use arguments of authority, call them racist in six different ways, compare them to incels, and accuse them of not discussing in good faith."
Level of discussion, 0.
For a fucking change. I don't care about what music you perform. Couple of the points of the grave robbing example was that 1. the status quo is super f'd up, and 2. Which classical music you play and what level of appreciation you have for its contributories is not really what cultural appropriation is worried about. So your argument is so selfishly framed I can't relate. Like the guys worried about how they'll hit on girls in the era of MeToo or that everything they say or do could be racist because of vague definitions and overzealous BLM supporters. It seems to be intentionally missing the point. Here is the real question, GH, why do you so consistently need to be such a fucking douchebag? I feel that way about people too, but if I expressed it like you just did I'd be punished pretty severely and somehow people still think it has nothing to do with the potential offensiveness of their posts to the people less bold than me when it comes to speaking up about it. People also seem to believe this has nothing to do with a difference of political opinion between me and some of the members of moderation that took years to be convinced "n***er jokes" weren't okay (don't think that was Drone afaik) Show nested quote +
I came here to answer someone who was not you and I use my field because, yeah, culture is my business you see. So I am interested. And the discussion is pretty darn interesting, whether it's Inge answers, or Drone's or whoever. And when you started posting, I was really ready to engage in a civil dialogue even though the three last times we have exchanged you have been such a douche. But then again, you come with your shitty attitude, and you transform what could be a nice discussion into a shitshow of insults, insinuation and of course, no answers to anything. As you always do.
It's a pity because I like this thread, and I like the people on this thread. Just talk like a civilized person if that's not too much to ask.
Christ sake.
This stuff isn't a curiosity or a performance for me, it's a life or death struggle for liberation for me and the people even more oppressed than I am and you guys treat it like an intellectual exercise where people aren't dying by the millions as a result (at least in part) of this lack of intensity regarding the severity of the status quo and the immediacy of the demand for justice. Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress. That makes sense, thanks This is what I've been pressing IgnE and Farv to do since they are very capable and when they say it you guys are less likely to immediately reject it. Also it's demonstrative of turning supportive words into supportive actions in a space they already exist in and have credibility.
It's fine to be emotional, and I get that you are emotional because you care, but we can try to be civil, assume good faith, and not gear into full personal attacks as soon as someone questions your arguments. It's a political discussion on a video game website, it's not life and death, we are not ennemies, and sincerely, none of it matters. It's about learning from each other, sometimes have more or less heated arguments and having a good time.
Everyone in this segment of the discussion is civil and perfectly nice. Just do the same. And, sincerely, I will be happy to discuss with you. I have no personal vendetta. It's just your tone is absolutely unacceptable.
|
On July 01 2020 07:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
@drone there's a lot of people that have said it a lot of ways but what is constantly reiterated is that expecting it to be served up on a platter is part of the problem.
If people were coming at this from a perspective of scouring the internet and libraries and having found nothing more than what they came with asked these questions that'd be one thing. But they can't even be bothered to use the site search function. I mean I did read (part skim to be fair) the entire wikipedia on cultural appropriation when we first had the discussion, but for one, wikipedia is notoriously white. It's just that, at least to me, specific examples make the discussion a bit less abstract.. As reiterated several times I don't have any issues with (in fact, I'd say I'm a very strong and consistent proponent of) the lack of clear boundaries or the concept of dialogue as a method of achieving greater mutual understanding. I also come to this from the perspective of a sociology teacher, one that envisions that this is a discussion I might end up leading with a future class of almost entirely white Norwegian high school students, and in that context, having specific examples that I can ask them to relate to to help facilitate discussion is immensely useful..
Have you considered paying someone to help you do that work?
it's not life and death
For you Biff, for you.
For me every day I log off and this site/community isn't an active agent of anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc. another person that looks like me is murdered/beat/incarcerated by police and it could be me. One day I might mention going to a protest (or just outside) and then you'll never hear from me again. I won't be here to answer your questions, or be your punching bag. I'll just be another dead Black man that died waiting for communities like this to get it. Communities where there are people like me feeling like we're screaming into the wind while the people we're screaming at try to communicate back to us by throwing sand that the wind carries back into our eyes and throats
|
On July 01 2020 07:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 05:17 Simberto wrote:
There are very clear consequences to voting for Trump, though. Trump made this pandemic worse. I don't think there is any way to dispute that.
And it was utterly obvious from the beginning that Trump is completely unfit to be president. This is what i mean with "i don't get it". Why would you vote for someone who is like Trump is. Incompetent, corrupt, boorish, arrogant, antiintellectual, racist, and just generally an asshole and a schoolyard bully. None of that is hidden. It is all right in the open. And yet people vote for him. America decided that it could not do better than Trump as president. I think that that is absurd, and sad, and you are reaping the very real consequences of that by having a Trump when you would need a competent president.
I do not say that i do not understand your feeling sad for being called a racist. I absolutely understand that. I would also feel sad if i were called a racist. I am a bit confused on doubling down on voting for a racist again out of spite of being called a racist, and i doubt that the person exists who says that they vote for trump, but doesn't actually want to vote for trump, but then still votes for trump because they have been called racist for wanting to vote for trump.
A really effective strategy to not be called a racist is to stop acting like a racist. If the republican party stopped trying to suppress the black vote wherever it has any chance of doing so, maybe less people would call them racist. If the republican party stopped supporting cops who kill black people, maybe less people would call them racist. If they stopped flying confederate flags, maybe less people would call them racist.
Instead, you are here and claim that if only people would stop calling them racist, they would immediately stop doing all the racist things, would stop voting for Trumps, and would generally do stuff which is good for the country. I find that to be a bit questionable.
I also don't claim to have a complete view of american politics. Throughout the 2016 election, i was 100% convinced that Trump would lose horribly. Surely no population would elect someone like that? I have been proven wrong, and i still fail to see any appeal in Trump, let alone enough for a relevant amount of people to vote for him. I have thus come to the conclusion that american politics is really strange, and pretty far removed from anything a rational person can understand. I hope that you find a way out of that, because it is really bad for your country and the people within it.
You can not honestly claim that having a competent president instead of a trump would not have helped you weather this pandemic a lot better. And that is what you risk whenever you elect someone like that for president. Something relevant might happen during his term, and he will be completely unfit to deal with it. Yes, during times of low-crisis, one can afford incompetent leadership for a while. Competent leadership is still better, but it is not as catastrophic. During a time of strife, having an incompetent leader can ruin a country. Which is why you should never elect someone like Trump, even if people call you mean names. Nobody competent was in the running then, and nobody competent is in the running now. That complicates the choice and calculus of fitness. And to agree with you partially, it is irrational to expect the people you called racist, instead of understanding their choice, to fear being called racist a second time. The best choice is to rebel against the political philosophy and language that made them settle on such an idiotic course in the first place. And if they have some cockamamie justification for distrust and division, just ignore them: it was never about a united country for them, it was about winning.
You can dislike, disagree and distrust Hillary or Biden all you want but comparing their supposed incompetence to Trump's doesn't make sense. They are both extremely seasonned politicians with extreme insight of the institutions, how the country is ran and what their role as POTUS would be.
And then you can hate them totally, that's something else. But saying "nobody competent was running then" when you had one of the most experienced politician in american politics running against a clown, and "nobody competent is running now" when you have a twice vice president who has been in the highest sphere of politics for four decades is hard to justify imo considering that Trump doesn't even start to understand what his role is, how democracy functions and what he is supposed to do.
|
Norway28614 Posts
On July 01 2020 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
@drone there's a lot of people that have said it a lot of ways but what is constantly reiterated is that expecting it to be served up on a platter is part of the problem.
If people were coming at this from a perspective of scouring the internet and libraries and having found nothing more than what they came with asked these questions that'd be one thing. But they can't even be bothered to use the site search function. I mean I did read (part skim to be fair) the entire wikipedia on cultural appropriation when we first had the discussion, but for one, wikipedia is notoriously white. It's just that, at least to me, specific examples make the discussion a bit less abstract.. As reiterated several times I don't have any issues with (in fact, I'd say I'm a very strong and consistent proponent of) the lack of clear boundaries or the concept of dialogue as a method of achieving greater mutual understanding. I also come to this from the perspective of a sociology teacher, one that envisions that this is a discussion I might end up leading with a future class of almost entirely white Norwegian high school students, and in that context, having specific examples that I can ask them to relate to to help facilitate discussion is immensely useful.. Have you considered paying someone to help you do that work?
Education can and should be free 
|
On July 01 2020 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 07:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
@drone there's a lot of people that have said it a lot of ways but what is constantly reiterated is that expecting it to be served up on a platter is part of the problem.
If people were coming at this from a perspective of scouring the internet and libraries and having found nothing more than what they came with asked these questions that'd be one thing. But they can't even be bothered to use the site search function. I mean I did read (part skim to be fair) the entire wikipedia on cultural appropriation when we first had the discussion, but for one, wikipedia is notoriously white. It's just that, at least to me, specific examples make the discussion a bit less abstract.. As reiterated several times I don't have any issues with (in fact, I'd say I'm a very strong and consistent proponent of) the lack of clear boundaries or the concept of dialogue as a method of achieving greater mutual understanding. I also come to this from the perspective of a sociology teacher, one that envisions that this is a discussion I might end up leading with a future class of almost entirely white Norwegian high school students, and in that context, having specific examples that I can ask them to relate to to help facilitate discussion is immensely useful.. Have you considered paying someone to help you do that work? Education can and should be free
Tell that to Sallie Mae
|
Northern Ireland24659 Posts
On July 01 2020 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 05:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 01 2020 04:57 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 03:35 Simberto wrote:On July 01 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 02:26 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 01 2020 02:03 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 01:36 Wombat_NI wrote:
That’s quite a lot to unpack at once Mr Danglars. ‘I never fully understand the whole he's-stupid about face to he-read-understood-did-it-intentionally, but I'm not going to puzzle for hours trying to understand.’
I’m not really seeing an about-face, at least within here. Trump can behave incredibly stupidly, i.e. some of his ludicrous pronouncements around corona, and be fully aware of what he’s doing in other spheres, i.e. dogwhistling.
One doesn’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to know that ‘white power’ has extremely negative connotations and history attached to it over and above other more plausibly loaded framings like ‘all lives matter’.
Biden’s not saying a whole lot on a whole lot these days, especially stuff the ostensible left feels are important issues, that he’s not commenting on statue defacement isn’t much of a priority, but yes he should have some position on that and be asked about it too.
As per the religious liberty ruling I’ll have to do more reading on what the case was about and return with my thoughts then. I do see the “obvious dogwhistling” and “obviously oblivious” as mainly a matter of special pleading. Trump’s tweeted all manner of idiotic stuff, and he likes all kind of counter protesters to the woke iconoclasts of the moment. It fits with retweeting it for the meta point of response (and Trump’s big about punching back in whatever stupid way he can), and taking it down once someone points out the white power words. So I’ll agree to disagree with you there. Biden is still running for president, and his campaigns silence on all kinds of matters of the day is self defeating. He has a heavy lift to prove himself mentally able to string sentences together into a point, and hiding from the public eye except for small, select appearances aids that narrative. And reporters praise his genius just laying low, if anybody was wondering how the media would respond to 4-8 years of Biden. What are you disagreeing with? It fits entirely with my criticism of how Trump uses Twitter as a form of ‘owning the libs’ regardless of what villainry it emboldens. Specifically the second point, you can do the former without retweeting guys shouting ‘white power’, be it careless or calculating the inclusion of such rhetoric in the Twitter output is just generally a bad move, both for general decency but increasingly in terms of self-interested political aggrandisement. Even centrist types who’ve previously given Trump the benefit of the doubt re dogwhistling are changing their tune. I haven’t altered my arguments or put them forth more convincingly, he’s just throwing so much of it out that he’s doing it to himself. The question is the usefulness of retweets like that to support arguments that Trump is a racist/supports such and such policies because he is a racist. You can read back ten or twenty pages to see arguments in that forum. You personally observe some centrists changing their mind on Trump and dogwhistling, so it shows you're aware of it. What you're transitioning to, that Trump's careless speech and disregard for social customs about how to talk ends up giving cover to actual racists and white supremacists, is quite another thing. I've said the same about Democrats that called McCain and Romney racists. They don't actually intend to further causes they don't support, but they actually advance them and degrade the discourse such that somebody like Trump is necessary to show the fruits of their tireless labor. The example of Trump, and hopefully the re-election of Trump, may roll back the "educated class" liberal use of racist/sexist and political correctness norms, seeing what the backlash and rejection of such norms will take. Maybe I'm digressing a little bit with that comment. Even take the video. Protesters in The Village are facing counter-protesters and are jeering at the Trump supporters by calling them racist. What to do when people call you racist for supporting President Trump? Well, one reaction is to heighten the meaninglessness of that term "Oh yeah? You're gonna go with that? Ok, White Power, f***ers." Highlight absurdity by being even more absurd. Using more modern language, you may call it rejecting the entire system of shouting racist at stuff you don't like. The presidential retweet should never have happened, and was rightly taken down, but it's no more actual support for white supremacy than defund the police is actual police reform. I can get behind your general decency argument, which is why I couldn't support Trump in the only presidential primary that mattered. It should also hurt Trump as it probably has. It's just the people that go one step further that I have a problem with, and really want to play special pleader with Trump to go from stupid to planned whenever it fits their conclusions. The conclusion is known, and the evidence is picked such to fit the conclusion. And, as if Biden's team reads this thread, Biden took questions on the statues and actually made the distinction between confederate statues and founding fathers and columbus. That's the kind of move he needs to get in the habit of making if he wants to defeat Trump. It would be stronger if he outright condemned the lawless teardowns, but I think people will accept what he said today. Hillary had a higher lead over Trump at this point of the election season than Biden has over Trump. And contrary to last time, Biden doesn't have such a large disgust reaction as Hillary, and Trump has eroded support in suburbs and evangelicals. I really hate that argument. This is coming from the people who "call a spade a spade", "tell it like it is", and who hate all the "snowflakes" who need "save spaces". Yet if you call someone tweeting racist stuff and saying racist stuff a racist, that is suddenly really problematic. I think the group of people who get angry about you calling Trump a racist, and who thus change who they vote for to Trump consists of roughly zero people. It is a sad state of affairs, and i generally dislike the hightened level of partisanship. But Trump really is just that bad. And i cannot understand people voting for him. It is just absurd. I can understand people voting for our German conservative party. I do not agree with them, but i can understand them, and i am pretty sure that i can have a reasonable conversation with them despite political differences. Probably not with our far-right AfD guys, though. But Trump...i just don't get it. I don't understand how you can view him, and honestly come to the conclusion that he is not everything people say about him. He doesn't hide it. He openly says, does and tweets racist stuff. He openly says, does and tweets corrupt stuff. He openly says, does and tweets incompetent stuff. And at this point, i simply do not see that mystical person who would stop voting for Trump if people just stopped being mean to him for voting for Trump, which Danglars claims to be a relevant amount of people. The people who are willing to vote for Trump right now, after everything we have seen, will not change that, no matter how nice you are to them, how careful you are to tiptoe around their sensibilities. This whole "Oh no, now you did it, you called me a racist, i totally would have listened to you, but now i won't and i will vote for Trump" thing is just smokes and mirrors. Anyone saying that would have voted for Trump, no matter what you say to them. We can just hope that there are not enough of them in the few states that matter. I do not think that we should go around and call everyone voting for Trump a racist. A reasonably large group of them probably are, but some might not be. You should absolutely say that Trump is a racist. Because he doesn't really hide that, at all. And Trumpists don't really show a lot of willingness to compromise, or to talk about issues. As much as this talks about the meta argument, and cites nothing, and treats dismissively and derisively the explanation that “racist” has been purged of all meaning, having been used for all Republicans candidates for the last three presidential elections, I’d say you had better start liking the argument or staying ignorant about right-of-center American politics. History doesn’t begin with Trump. I can only feel so much sympathy for your “I just don’t get it” if your posture remains as described in this post. And I’m doubly glad that I responded to Wombat’s post to hear precisely the reaction I wagered. Thankfully, this is a free country, so anyone here can call whatever national trend as “mythical” or “I just don’t get it” and vote on whatever they believe to be true. It must be some act of divine providence that the immediate post following leads with “Every Trump voter did a racist thing voting for Trump..” hmm so strange about citizens rebelled against unfair and capricious slurs in ways I don’t approve of. So strange. Racism hasn’t been purged of all meaning, people are just more aware of the forms it can take, the bar previously being something akin to if you’re not caught on tape calling someone the n word then you’re not racist. As to whether it’s been unfairly applied to people or not in the past, why does that necessitate a doubling down when the glove absolutely does fit in this particular PotUS’ case. How is it a meta argument to fight against overreaching claims of racism until you’re defending actual racist behaviour to ‘own the libs’ and, conservatives will subsequently claim that the left are unfair and don’t want to try to understand them? It’s a version of the boy who cried wolf, except the villagers came running every time and helped him slay the wolf. There is no comeuppance here for crying wolf if your political opponents double down to such an extent that even the skeptical centre have serious qualms. These new “forms it can take” end up being bunk or being a redefinition of the term that essentially erases the stigma. That’s exactly how I characterize statements like “if you voted for Trump, you had to be at least a little racist” or “everyone is a little racist.” This disagreement between us is at the heart of the modern clash of cultures, but I have some hope that you’ll come around in time. Usually you have to be personally called a racist or white supremacist over something minor about three times to start the process. I likewise disagree with the glove. It just doesn’t fit. You and others are being far too selective and demand to see a through-line when none exists. The meta argument I referred to isn’t approximated by your restatement. I’ll have to reread my original post on a bigger screen and see if it was a big enough point to repeat.
I don’t see them removing the stigma, merely removing the plausible deniability people like to hide behind, safe in the feeling they’re not being racist. Or merely to educate people who are genuinely unaware of how some of their behaviour is necessarily received by others who have no malicious intent whatsoever.
I’ve been called these things plenty of times, and a misogynist to boot. Sometimes I’ve realised my behaviour was improper, sometimes people were being unhinged and unreasonable, it wouldn’t stop me calling out others for bad behaviour.
My referring to the glove fitting was with Trump specifically, in contrast to you mentioning the charges levied from some quarters against McCain and Romney in previous campaigns. My point being even if one feels those were bogus attacks, Trump is a different beast in this regard entirely (and a different person notably), so the prior unfairness shouldn’t insulate him from valid charges.
It is a culture war now, sure. One I don’t think you guys are going to win, or even be a competitive force if you choose to tether yourself to the Trump train uncritically. Which I’m all for in many ways, equally the aspects of conservatism I do like will be dragged down by that anchor too.
To pick something from our previous exchanges that we did agree on, specifically the rural vs urban divide and things of that nature. I (controversially in my social circle) agree on gay cakes (we had a case too, what is it with cakes)?
I’m happy to hear conservatives out on all sorts of things, my patience is running thinner and thinner the more they act as apologists in other areas such as race, Trump’s general conduct etc. I don’t think I’m alone in being more irritated by the conservative world’s general failure to hold the guy to scrutiny than the fact he got elected.
He’s a wrecking ball, in all sorts of areas but I believe he’s going to cause a ton of damage to the American right too in the medium to long term.
|
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote:
Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
The examples I know are in the past. Elvis stealing from black artists in Memphis. You got any more modern examples, say mostly uncontested examples, in the past 20 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
