|
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 |
Norway28712 Posts
On July 01 2020 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: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
I live in Norway though. Here, it mostly is. I'm also not asking for more than what I want to contribute..
+ Show Spoiler +
I mean, this is a bit besides the point, but I (alongside with a significant portion of other sociology teachers in Norway) am also involved with various online sharing groups where we collectively discuss global social issues that arise, and one month ago, shortly before summer break, I was involved in a discussion regarding how we should teach George Floyd protests, where some other Norwegian teacher argued that the racial component should not be given too much focus (arguing that we should maintain a class rather than identity-focus), but where I, partially because of the knowledge I have attained from my participation in this thread (and this is obviously to your credit) argued that this was entirely insufficient when discussing the reasoning behind the ongoing civil strife in the US because the racial component is such an obvious and significant factor, where I was also able to point towards specific american historical events that in Norway are virtually unknown because american history tends to be painted with a much broader brush. Again, partially because these events have been mentioned by some poster in this thread (sometimes you) which has inspired me to read about and educate myself on that event and what lead up to it.
I know I've said before, and I maintain, that I myself tend to have a class rather than identity focus on social issues. But this is a perspective I have as a Norwegian. However, I'm also involved in the sharing and dissemination of knowledge to fellow Norwegians, how things are in the US being one of the issues we discuss and which I might be expected to disseminate, and then identity-based politics and understanding of these is obviously very relevant. This has been a long-winded way of saying that I really appreciate your contributions to this thread, but also to say that your contributions don't end in this thread, people who read your posts and understand your points might argue them in other contexts further down the line.
|
On July 01 2020 08:09 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:41 Danglars wrote: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.
Well, since both our patience is running low, we can let this be. We are incredibly far apart in thinking about this matter.
|
On July 01 2020 08:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: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 I live in Norway though. Here, it mostly is. I'm also not asking for more than what I want to contribute.. + Show Spoiler +
I mean, this is a bit besides the point, but I (alongside with a significant portion of other sociology teachers in Norway) am also involved with various online sharing groups where we collectively discuss global social issues that arise, and one month ago, shortly before summer break, I was involved in a discussion regarding how we should teach George Floyd protests, where some other Norwegian teacher argued that the racial component should not be given too much focus (arguing that we should maintain a class rather than identity-focus), but where I, partially because of the knowledge I have attained from my participation in this thread (and this is obviously to your credit) argued that this was entirely insufficient when discussing the reasoning behind the ongoing civil strife in the US because the racial component is such an obvious and significant factor, where I was also able to point towards specific american historical events that in Norway are virtually unknown because american history tends to be painted with a much broader brush. Again, partially because these events have been mentioned by some poster in this thread (sometimes you) which has inspired me to read about and educate myself on that event and what lead up to it.
I know I've said before, and I maintain, that I myself tend to have a class rather than identity focus on social issues. But this is a perspective I have as a Norwegian. However, I'm also involved in the sharing and dissemination of knowledge to fellow Norwegians, how things are in the US being one of the issues we discuss and which I might be expected to disseminate, and then identity-based politics and understanding of these is obviously very relevant. This has been a long-winded way of saying that I really appreciate your contributions to this thread, but also to say that your contributions don't end in this thread, people who read your posts and understand your points might argue them in other contexts further down the line.
Are you inviting me to emigrate to Norway? Honestly, I'm not too picky right now and global warming might not be all bad for you guys. You got a shed and an extension chord? I do appreciate the kind words btw.
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 01 2020 08:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 08:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 01 2020 07:41 Danglars wrote: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. Well, since both our patience is running low, we can let this be. We are incredibly far apart in thinking about this matter.
Well yes, part of why I enjoy this thread.
I still don’t fully understand your position here, or at least to with confidence neatly summate it accurately. From the sounds your position on not criticising Trump from the right is basically that there’s a culture war with the left and if you give an inch they’ll take a mile.
Which if that’s inaccurate, do correct it.
My point is that an increasingly small proportion of people believe that conservatives aren’t racist enablers or it’s really an issue of states rights or whatever when their President so frequently transgresses in these domains without censure from that cohort.
As I’ve said before, in a lesser of two evils situation this doesn’t mean I don’t think a conservative should not vote for Trump, equally the Trump of 2020 is far worse than even I had envisaged so I don’t blame people for voting the first time round. Hell there were small parts of his campaign platform I even liked.
Do feel free to disagree and illuminate me here, by all means. Just my own biased interpretation based on interactions with Trump supporters in my sphere after all
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 01 2020 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 08:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 01 2020 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: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 I live in Norway though. Here, it mostly is. I'm also not asking for more than what I want to contribute.. + Show Spoiler +
I mean, this is a bit besides the point, but I (alongside with a significant portion of other sociology teachers in Norway) am also involved with various online sharing groups where we collectively discuss global social issues that arise, and one month ago, shortly before summer break, I was involved in a discussion regarding how we should teach George Floyd protests, where some other Norwegian teacher argued that the racial component should not be given too much focus (arguing that we should maintain a class rather than identity-focus), but where I, partially because of the knowledge I have attained from my participation in this thread (and this is obviously to your credit) argued that this was entirely insufficient when discussing the reasoning behind the ongoing civil strife in the US because the racial component is such an obvious and significant factor, where I was also able to point towards specific american historical events that in Norway are virtually unknown because american history tends to be painted with a much broader brush. Again, partially because these events have been mentioned by some poster in this thread (sometimes you) which has inspired me to read about and educate myself on that event and what lead up to it.
I know I've said before, and I maintain, that I myself tend to have a class rather than identity focus on social issues. But this is a perspective I have as a Norwegian. However, I'm also involved in the sharing and dissemination of knowledge to fellow Norwegians, how things are in the US being one of the issues we discuss and which I might be expected to disseminate, and then identity-based politics and understanding of these is obviously very relevant. This has been a long-winded way of saying that I really appreciate your contributions to this thread, but also to say that your contributions don't end in this thread, people who read your posts and understand your points might argue them in other contexts further down the line.
Are you inviting me to emigrate to Norway? Honestly, I'm not too picky right now and global warming might not be all bad for you guys. You got a shed and an extension chord? I do appreciate the kind words btw.
I might note that my rate is considerably lower than GH’s.
|
On July 01 2020 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Treat the culture you are borrowing from with respect certainly seems like a valid take - but one that is still almost entirely subjective imo. Which is fine, these aren't quantifiable matters and thus we're aiming for intersubjectivity rather than objectivity, but consequently it's one that also demands a good faith interpretation of intentions. (e.g. ask questions rather than make allegations. )
I think this is a critical part of a lot of the cultural questions we’re facing nowadays. Subjective judgments require good-faith efforts at forming a mutual understanding. Everybody should try not to be an asshole first and foremost because they don’t want to be an asshole, but secondarily because if they don’t police their own behavior, eventually the people around them will start treating them like an asshole. Without clear agreed-upon boundaries of what does and doesn’t constitute being an asshole, bitter disputes are inevitable unless people simultaneously hold themselves to a very stringent standard while applying a much more permissive standard to others (sort of a Postel’s Law but applied to manners rather than telecommunications).
This scales pretty terribly, especially on the internet, where people aren’t that likely to be acting in good faith, and even less likely to think others are acting in good faith. This means everybody always thinks other people are being assholes. Maybe worse, thru don’t trust other people to make honest judgments about who’s being an asshole, meaning there’s no point in holding yourself to a stringent standard if others aren’t going to judge you fairly anyway.
|
|
|
On July 01 2020 09:31 JimmiC wrote:
In this thread most people are acting in good faith and saying they are not is just a excuse to justify treating them poorly.
Yeah, I’d apply it more to places like Twitter.
|
On July 01 2020 09:31 JimmiC wrote:
In this thread most people are acting in good faith and saying they are not is just a excuse to justify treating them poorly.
Do you remember (you've referenced it before) what set us off on the wrong foot?
|
|
|
|
|
On July 01 2020 09:53 JimmiC wrote:Yes you were instantly a jerk to me on my first post + Show Spoiler + after lurking for quite a while. I then apologized multiple times to which you would be a jerk in short order after again and again. Not unlike how you treated biff lately and countless before. It was just last week you were calling u4 posters who were asking you about defunding the police since you had been talking about abolishing the police years ago. I’ve started to notice a pattern that when some one asks you a direct question about most anything you respond by acting like it’s beneath you or they are in bad faith, it makes one question if you just don’t know past the slogan and the names, or are scared to get it wrong and it is some toxic Defense mechanism.
But outside of playing arm chair psychologist you Assume the absolute worst, treat it as their position, insult them then play the victim when they hit back.
Same cycle over and over. This is why you have always had issues with so many people it actually has zero to do with your politics and everything to do with how you treat people. And it will likely continue until the end of time because you always need someone to be mad at. Every time I go away you just find another and there was many before me. I’m not special just one if the many. Some how it is always the many’s fault and not yours, go figure.
Edit: tldr I didn’t assume you were posting in bad faith I knew you were being a jerk on purpose because you had done it some many times before, and I still am confident in that assessment because you have done it over and over again to others.
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but this was the first time interacting with you that I ever remembered
On July 23 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 08:21 Kyadytim wrote:On July 23 2018 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 08:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 07:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2018 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2018 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Pretty sure if we just vote for corporate sponsored Democrats dependent on and exploitative of that system it should sort itself in a few generations. At least that's what people keep telling me. No one has told you that. The system is fucked and will stay fucked for the foreseeable future because of the way it is set up. Yes, they, and you have. I suppose you're clarifying that it was in fact a fruitless dream meant instead to perpetuate it. The discussion we just had was about general policy. Election reform never entered into it. If you seriously want large scale election reforms your much better off looking at starting a revolution then a political movement. I don't know what you think we were talking about, but I was trying to explain to you why your calls for supporting corporate Democrats in a lesser of two evilism were moving us away from progress and not toward it. It seems you either didn't understand or now agree with me and disagree with your previous argument. There is more to progress then just election reform. If you care about gay rights your better of with Clinton then Trump If you care about women rights your better of with Clinton then Trump If you care about immigrants your better of with Clinton then Trump If you care about healthcare your better of with Clinton then Trump ect ect. If you care about election reform your fucked because its not happening. Yeah, exactly. You're saying voting for the person who wants to be less destructive (but still destructive) to all of those things/people/issues is our only choice and trying to fix it is hopeless. So all the groups who have been getting screwed over since before Trump and under decades of straight Democrat party rule should continue to enthusiastically vote for Clintons to stave off Trumps. That's literally insanity. Can you still not understand why I can and should reject that nonsense argument in totality? You say this as though things haven't been getting better for women, gay people, and seriously ill people and that Democrats, for all of their flaws, haven't been contributing to things getting better for them. Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? You point to the unintended consequences of exploitation of the many and wealth accumulation of the few and say "but don't you see the benefits?!?" I mean it betrays such a fundamentally different relationship with dynamics at play I don't even know where to begin addressing it. Number of presidents and many Many others. Your soap box is getting very tippy.
Is it well understood (by others) why responding to a question about measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black people since the 60's with "number of presidents" was both offensively dismissive of the premise and not emblematic of good-faith engagement?
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
Interesting. Reading the article what’s the push for removing Woodrow Wilson’s name from things that Biden mentions?
I’m sure there are legitimate grievances there I just haven’t yet been experienced as to them.
|
I disagree with him but I am happy this is his stance because it increases the % chance Biden wins
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 01 2020 10:15 Mohdoo wrote:I disagree with him but I am happy this is his stance because it increases the % chance Biden wins
I do too.
If Biden someone loses this election it’ll be calamity on an almost admirable scale
|
Canada11370 Posts
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.
I don't think I could work with this definition- for one it sneaks in a different definition of white supremacy. But I disagree with it for other reasons. I don't see an inherent problem with people being inspired by a culture, then selling that form. The problem, in the past, was racism kept non-white performers from widely selling. (With segregated markets, whichever market is the largest will make the most money.) Once racism declined and the markets desegregated, and I see few problems (except for indigenous religious practices and things like that- I think it's prudent to not commodify people's sacred traditions.) Inspiration is an infinite resource. (Tolkien publishing the Lord of the Rings doesn't stop Rowling from publishing Harry Potter.) There is always a market for quality work... though pop culture consumes the most accessible and not always the best. Just because a white person writes some music or makes some food doesn't at all limit someone from the actual culture from coming in after- in fact, in publishing they are looking for that sort of thing right now #OwnVoices.
It's also a mess for gatekeeping- who decides who has permission. Some Indian yogis comes in, marketing yoga to North America- it catches on like wildfire. Then later others are convinced it's appropriation and they need to take back yoga from North American because it got too popular. Then, I was reading some other article that argued yoga itself was cultural appropriation to the Indian people themselves because it asserts Brahmin hegemony. And it's like, who even decides any of this stuff? One can allow and another disallow- and as long as there is someone that is dissenting, I suppose they have veto? Intellectual property has some very clear limitations in ownership, control, and duration. Appropriation is this amorphous and wide sweeping accusation that is impossible to adhere to except to re-segregate cultures- it's the only logical endgame based on the argumentation. But it's not a good solution.
|
On July 01 2020 10:11 Wombat_NI wrote:Interesting. Reading the article what’s the push for removing Woodrow Wilson’s name from things that Biden mentions? I’m sure there are legitimate grievances there I just haven’t yet been experienced as to them.
Wilson was notoriously racist in public and private, even by 1910 standards.
"His administration resegregated several federal agencies; he wrote sympathetically about the Ku Klux Klan; and he described Southern Black people as an “ignorant and inferior race” who couldn’t be trusted with political power. "
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/woodrow-wilson-racism-self-determination.html
And yet, with all of that he was remarkably competent as an administrator and skilled at politics. Historians usually rate him in the top 5 or so US presidents.
|
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.
It seems to me that there needs to be real material damage to these non-white practitioners to make this argument. A cultural good that would not reach a specific market absent these cultural appropriators is only replicating unjust, racial distribution of wealth in the sense that any economic action not fighting this racist distribution of wealth is by definition replicating it.
|
On July 01 2020 11:43 Sbrubbles 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. It seems to me that there needs to be real material damage to these non-white practitioners to make this argument. A cultural good that would not reach a specific market absent these cultural appropriators is only replicating unjust, racial distribution of wealth in the sense that any economic action not fighting this racist distribution of wealth is by definition replicating it.
There are a lot of statistics around discrimination towards POC business loans and other various things that make it hard for POC to start a business. One thing they have going for them is unique food and culture. So if you want POC food, they make it, so it gives them an opportunity to have a business. When a white dude has an easier time making his own business due to family wealth (most people who consider themselves successful just come from a successful family and POCs have significantly less family wealth), they are taking up business "spaces" that could otherwise be fulfilled by a POC.
|
On July 01 2020 08:14 Danglars 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. 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?
Elvis is actually what I had in mind when I wrote the post. I think he is a fairly unambiguous example. I think it happens in fashion fairly often to greater or lesser degrees, but I don't have specific examples and don't want to spend a lot of time googling around for it.
On July 01 2020 11:19 Falling 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. I don't think I could work with this definition- for one it sneaks in a different definition of white supremacy. But I disagree with it for other reasons. I don't see an inherent problem with people being inspired by a culture, then selling that form. The problem, in the past, was racism kept non-white performers from widely selling. (With segregated markets, whichever market is the largest will make the most money.) Once racism declined and the markets desegregated, and I see few problems (except for indigenous religious practices and things like that- I think it's prudent to not commodify people's sacred traditions.) Inspiration is an infinite resource. (Tolkien publishing the Lord of the Rings doesn't stop Rowling from publishing Harry Potter.) There is always a market for quality work... though pop culture consumes the most accessible and not always the best. Just because a white person writes some music or makes some food doesn't at all limit someone from the actual culture from coming in after- in fact, in publishing they are looking for that sort of thing right now #OwnVoices. It's also a mess for gatekeeping- who decides who has permission. Some Indian yogis comes in, marketing yoga to North America- it catches on like wildfire. Then later others are convinced it's appropriation and they need to take back yoga from North American because it got too popular. Then, I was reading some other article that argued yoga itself was cultural appropriation to the Indian people themselves because it asserts Brahmin hegemony. And it's like, who even decides any of this stuff? One can allow and another disallow- and as long as there is someone that is dissenting, I suppose they have veto? Intellectual property has some very clear limitations in ownership, control, and duration. Appropriation is this amorphous and wide sweeping accusation that is impossible to adhere to except to re-segregate cultures- it's the only logical endgame based on the argumentation. But it's not a good solution.
You chose some odd examples didn't you? Tolkien and Rowling? The problem with cultural appropriation as a concept is that it overlaps with non-racialized bad behavior like plagiarism and deception. It happens in business all the time where a bigger, better placed competitor just rips off a small business or inventor. That's capitalism we say. So the definition I provided overlaps with that quite a bit, although you could find cases where it's more clear that the only reason one person was able to monetize the idea was because they were white. So if we accept the idea of white privilege we can see that it might generally lead to situations where they can monetize that privilege at the expense of non-white actors.
#OwnVoices seems like a response to the outcry against cultural appropriation, does it not? There's been a general shift in public opinion such that non-white voices are now more valued (by the market) than they were before for a variety of reasons.
On July 01 2020 11:43 Sbrubbles 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. It seems to me that there needs to be real material damage to these non-white practitioners to make this argument. A cultural good that would not reach a specific market absent these cultural appropriators is only replicating unjust, racial distribution of wealth in the sense that any economic action not fighting this racist distribution of wealth is by definition replicating it.
It seems to me that I built that into my extemporaneous definition of cultural appropriation, which, truth be told, is much narrower than the one you might find in teen vogue. So I'd say yeah, you are right. What are the implications of the right to exclude others in various cases?
Edit: You'll notice that my definition doesn't have much to say about a white person wearing a feathered headdress at a party. You'd have to add to it to explain why that is bad. In short I think the reason it's bad is that it's in bad taste. It's an overloaded and contested signifier. In 20 years or 50 years or 100 years it might not be in bad taste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
