Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:28 pm UTC

And obviously, you're a better judge of which ones are the real ones than they are?

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:22 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And obviously, you're a better judge of which ones are the real ones than they are?

You mean, than you are. And to that, I would say, yes I am.

You're the one who thinks that sampling the non-downtrodden would give you a good sense of what the downtrodden might say. Someone else might find that a bit hard to follow, perhaps even dishonest.

And now, your argument has circled itself. Which is it: A team name isn't racist because the overarching culture doesn't find it racist; or a team name is racist because those who it targets find it racist?

-Crissa

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:41 am UTC

Crissa wrote:You realize that no amount of you telling a Jewish person that 'Kike' is just the friendly name of your football team is going to convince them, right?

You're doing the same exact thing here. But apparently it's okay, because mumble mumble some portion have abandoned/lost their cultural/color/regional differences and chosen your answer.

That's abhorrent.

-Crissa

Kite, Kike, Hike the Ball over here?
Misunderstandings creep in.

Humans are not born with a list of words to offend with and be offended by.
Are you thin skinned? What color is thin?

off topic
Spoiler:
The skin of a Large Cat's Tail is thin.
That's why they can have stripes on their tails and not spots.

It's True.
Keith Devon said so.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:24 am UTC

Crissa wrote:You realize that no amount of you telling a Jewish person that 'Kike' is just the friendly name of your football team is going to convince them, right?

You're doing the same exact thing here. But apparently it's okay, because mumble mumble some portion have abandoned/lost their cultural/color/regional differences and chosen your answer.

That's abhorrent.

-Crissa


Fortunately we have a real world example of pretty exactly that, see Tottenham Hotspur fans and how they describe themselves for details

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:58 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And obviously, you're a better judge of which ones are the real ones than they are?

You mean, than you are. And to that, I would say, yes I am.

You're the one who thinks that sampling the non-downtrodden would give you a good sense of what the downtrodden might say. Someone else might find that a bit hard to follow, perhaps even dishonest.

And now, your argument has circled itself. Which is it: A team name isn't racist because the overarching culture doesn't find it racist; or a team name is racist because those who it targets find it racist?

-Crissa


Are you contending that "redskins" is a slur not against all Native Americans, but only against downtrodden Native American people? What is your basis for this?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:32 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:No, it's not a trade language (at least in many such regions) because it is the normal everyday language for internal communication. Do you think the average Argentinian only speaks Spanish to make trade with Spain easier? No, they speak Spanish because Spanish culture and language was imposed on the region.

Argentinians wouldn't be a good example of people of non-European ethnicity speaking a European language; in terms of descent, Argentina is even more European than the US (with Spanish ancestry predominating overall, and Italian ancestry in the Buenos Aires region). There are more sizeable populations of non-European descent using European languages in most other New World countries, but throughout most of Africa and South Asia the pattern is to use a European language (chiefly English or French) non-natively for governmental and commercial purposes while maintaining a variety of indigenous languages. To some extent, the strength of the colonial languages depends on the unsuitability of any local replacement: for example, the Indian government initially wanted to make Hindi the national language, but this effort was met with fierce resistance from southern Indians who viewed it as northern imperialism and preferred the "neutral" medium of English.

Or the part where Christianity wasn't appropriated by Europeans but where the people who originally spread Christianity to the west (the apostles) were Jewish and so, again, it's not an example of appropriation?

Jewish scripture and theology absolutely were appropriated by Europeans. This goes to the point of some members of an underprivileged group not representing the whole: the fact that a small number of heretics decided to spread a breakaway religion didn't make the Jews any happier when the Empire's most privileged ethnicities (Greeks and Latins) took the Jewish holy book as their own, and imposed their own, newly invented theological interpretations on it. Translating a group's holy book into your language and then figuring out how the whole thing foretells the arrival of a god figure that that group vehemently rejects? That's as appropriative as it gets.

This is so clearly written it bears repeating.

I have come into Conflict with a person I care about and a person that belongs to My Group.
Well...It is a Large Group. There are a Great Many of Us.

It is one thing for those on the OutSide to mess with Culture.
It is a different thing for those on the InSide to mess with Culture.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Are you contending that "redskins" is a slur not against all Native Americans, but only against downtrodden Native American people? What is your basis for this?

So you're saying it's okay to have downtrodden, disparaged peoples - just as long as you water out their numbers with those who never faced the same prejudice and upbringing?

-Crissa

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:01 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Are you contending that "redskins" is a slur not against all Native Americans, but only against downtrodden Native American people? What is your basis for this?

So you're saying it's okay to have downtrodden, disparaged peoples - just as long as you water out their numbers with those who never faced the same prejudice and upbringing?

-Crissa


Crissa, I think Tyndmyr is contending your claim that anyone of a group who claims that a word is offensive has "lost their cultural roots", as it arguably comes off as a No True Scotsman argument, and that polls of the targeted group that show masses of this opinion can be discounted because, by not being offended, they don't count. Tyndmyr appears to be asking for an objective guideline for how to determine which words are off-limits.

Tyndmyr, I think Crissa is trying to argue that, fundamentally, the word is disparaging, and it doesn't matter if only one person is disparaged (not just offended) by it, because it is quintessentially a form of stereotyping.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:11 am UTC

Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw. I won't say this is a simple problem to fix! But verifying data requires, well, verifying it. Crosstabs. Look for bias in the sample, or the identification - for instance, more people identify as conservative than liberal or pro-life than anti-abortion; because of how their perceive the words, not because any definitional differences that could be diagnostic.

I don't get discriminated against for my heritage. Ever. It's not possible to. Therefore my voice on what counts as insulting to my heritage is nil because of that.

-Crissa

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:21 am UTC

In real life, calling an Indian a 'Red Skin' is, just, silly.
Indians get sunburnt like everyone else.

It can be frightening when those kinds of words are used by people that are mean, violent and scary.
To be fair; Those kinds of words are an early warning system for some.

When they start talking about stringing up the 'Red Skin' it's time to leave through the kitchen.

Who is hard on Indians?
Other Indians; Often.

Have you heard the way the Navaho talk about the...The Tribe to the South.
jeeze. White people would not dare. Navaho do.

Not all. Some.
There are Indian Red Necks.

That is a funny combo deal.
Red Neck Red Skins?

Navaho are Brown.
Paiute are Brown.

Yuma are Brown.
Yurok are Light Brown, some are whiter than white in skin.

Where did we get the Red Skin idea?

shhh. Word to the wise.
It is Not flattering to many Indians to be called white.

Red Skin was a bad thing to call people when Indians could not live inside the city limits.
It was not the words that hurt, it was all the other ways life was limited by what White People said.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby bigglesworth » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:13 am UTC

addams wrote:Where did we get the Red Skin idea?
Native Americans have brown skin, but not the same brown as Indians from India or mixed-race Sub-Saharan African/European people - compared to those two examples it is more red - terracotta perhaps?
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:46 am UTC

Crissa wrote:Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw.


As a general principle, this is terrible. It plays into the common bi-erasing and have-you-had-surgery-yet transphobic mindset.

In this case, I don't think it's so much a question of which people are native american that matters. What matters here is that an easily distinguishable subset (those who live on reservations) have drastically different opinions than the general population of native americans.

There being a significant (22% according to this) and easy-to-define subset like this who are strongly opposed to the name is, I would say, grounds to consider the term offensive.

This I would say is a good general principle. That, even if the overall population is not particularly opposed to something, but a significant and easy-to-define subgroup does then, for the purposes of the issue at hand, that subgroup should be treated as a separate group.

Going back to this case, given the apparent discrepancy in opinions between natives living on reservations and other natives, it seems reasonable to treat those living on reservations as a separate group and say the name Washington redskins is offensive to natives living on reservations; it should be changed.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:05 pm UTC

I'd be more inclined to be sympathic to that viewpoint if anyone had put forward evidence that their views were different

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:06 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'd be more inclined to be sympathic to that viewpoint if anyone had put forward evidence that their views were different
And I'd be more inclined to engage with you if you provided any indication of having read the thread.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

I have, you wouldn't and there isn't

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:07 pm UTC

viewtopic.php?p=3611089#p3611089 - Heisenberg links to a study finding 67% think the term is offensive.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:54 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Tyndmyr, I think Crissa is trying to argue that, fundamentally, the word is disparaging, and it doesn't matter if only one person is disparaged (not just offended) by it, because it is quintessentially a form of stereotyping.


Offense is already a pretty low bar for harm. If we're going to shift to "if it disparages even one person, it shouldn't be used", well, language is pretty much fucked in general.

Shit, Oklahoma stems from Chocktaw words meaning "red people". Now, I don't see people outraged en masse that Oklahoma is still a state(at least, not for that reason)...so, must the state be renamed even if nobody wants that? Where are the limits to this?

Crissa wrote:Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw. I won't say this is a simple problem to fix! But verifying data requires, well, verifying it. Crosstabs. Look for bias in the sample, or the identification - for instance, more people identify as conservative than liberal or pro-life than anti-abortion; because of how their perceive the words, not because any definitional differences that could be diagnostic.

I don't get discriminated against for my heritage. Ever. It's not possible to. Therefore my voice on what counts as insulting to my heritage is nil because of that.

-Crissa


More people identifying as conservative than liberal is not inherently a sign of bad data. It just means one viewpoint happens to be more popular. If you meant conservative vs republican...the issue is that you are expecting words to be perfect synonyms when they are not. I know plenty of people who consider themselves conservative, but do not identify as republicans. Perhaps they identify as independent. There is no contradiction here.

Do you seriously think people are accidentally describing themselves as Native American because they are confused about what these words mean?

Also...just because you, personally do not get discriminated against doesn't mean that you can't identify something as insulting. Hell, one can hear something directed at a person you do not share a heritage with that's sufficiently inappropriate to be cringe-worthy. Is it not appropriate to voice disapproval then?

eSOANEM wrote:
Crissa wrote:Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw.


As a general principle, this is terrible. It plays into the common bi-erasing and have-you-had-surgery-yet transphobic mindset.


It breaks down for a lot of identifications, yeah. Self-perception is not always perfect...but people *usually* know themselves better than strangers know them. Some questions of identity are quite easy, but cultural ones have inherently fuzzy lines, and it feels remarkably awkward for me to tell someone that they aren't REALLY Native American. I mean...that's not even consistent with things Crissa has previously posted.

eSOANEM wrote:In this case, I don't think it's so much a question of which people are native american that matters. What matters here is that an easily distinguishable subset (those who live on reservations) have drastically different opinions than the general population of native americans.


It is pretty clearly not a slur that only applies to people on reservations, though.

Not every distinguishable subset is a relevant division. "people who are in my family" is an easily distinguishable subset from the general population, but if I published a serious study proposing that a survey of my family was just as legit as surveying the entire population, I'd be rightfully ignored/laughed at.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Tyndmyr, I think Crissa is trying to argue that, fundamentally, the word is disparaging, and it doesn't matter if only one person is disparaged (not just offended) by it, because it is quintessentially a form of stereotyping.


Offense is already a pretty low bar for harm. If we're going to shift to "if it disparages even one person, it shouldn't be used", well, language is pretty much fucked in general.


Did anyone suggest everyone stop saying any word which offends a single person? No? Then fuck right off.

Tyndmyr wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:In this case, I don't think it's so much a question of which people are native american that matters. What matters here is that an easily distinguishable subset (those who live on reservations) have drastically different opinions than the general population of native americans.


It is pretty clearly not a slur that only applies to people on reservations, though.

Not every distinguishable subset is a relevant division. "people who are in my family" is an easily distinguishable subset from the general population, but if I published a serious study proposing that a survey of my family was just as legit as surveying the entire population, I'd be rightfully ignored/laughed at.


You missed the part where I said that native americans living on reservations make up a significant subset which is easily-distinguishable then?

Because it's right in that post.

Obviously I'm saying that tiny subsets (like one family) can be ignored. Where the border between significant and insignificant is drawn is somewhat arbitrary, but 1/5 seems pretty significant to me.

So, if you're just going to continue arguing against straw men you're building yourself, I say again, fuck. Right. Off.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:38 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Tyndmyr, I think Crissa is trying to argue that, fundamentally, the word is disparaging, and it doesn't matter if only one person is disparaged (not just offended) by it, because it is quintessentially a form of stereotyping.


Offense is already a pretty low bar for harm. If we're going to shift to "if it disparages even one person, it shouldn't be used", well, language is pretty much fucked in general.


Did anyone suggest everyone stop saying any word which offends a single person? No? Then fuck right off.


Did...did you read that? Look, I'm highlighting what I'm responding to, because evidently, quoting wasn't clear enough.

Tyndmyr wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:In this case, I don't think it's so much a question of which people are native american that matters. What matters here is that an easily distinguishable subset (those who live on reservations) have drastically different opinions than the general population of native americans.


It is pretty clearly not a slur that only applies to people on reservations, though.

Not every distinguishable subset is a relevant division. "people who are in my family" is an easily distinguishable subset from the general population, but if I published a serious study proposing that a survey of my family was just as legit as surveying the entire population, I'd be rightfully ignored/laughed at.


You missed the part where I said that native americans living on reservations make up a significant subset which is easily-distinguishable then?

Because it's right in that post.

Obviously I'm saying that tiny subsets (like one family) can be ignored. Where the border between significant and insignificant is drawn is somewhat arbitrary, but 1/5 seems pretty significant to me.

So, if you're just going to continue arguing against straw men you're building yourself, I say again, fuck. Right. Off.


Pretty sure I can't just arbitrarily use subsets without reason regardless of size. I can't just substitute Californians for Americans, even if it is easy to define Californians, Californians differ in opinion from Americans, and Californians are a significant subset.

Arbitrarily selecting subsets is not valid. "they have a different opinion than the main group" is...still cherry picking. Kind of obviously. You need reasons why they are the most valid survey population. "they have a different opinion" does not demonstrate that. Duh.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:53 pm UTC

As has had to be pointed out in this thread numerous times, something being offensive (to any number of people) does not necessarily mean people have to stop using a word. That's each person's choice. It's also everyone else's choice whether they want to call someone a dick for using it anyway.

To the second point, if some term offends californians but not americans, I'm fine saying that term is offensive enough not to be used. That's not cherry picking, that's just saying "hey, this term offends such and such a group". In this case, it's only because it's already because you've already decided that, if it offends any group, "redskin" ought to offend native americans generally that this appears cherry picking.

Based on the term itself, one could conclude that the people it's actually disparaging is non-white-passing natives, or possibly those who are white-passing. I suspect the former as a set is closer to that of natives living on reservations than it is to the general native american population.

So, if I just saw this term without the pre-conceived notion that "redskin" was a slur for native american, I'd probably conclude that a group much more like the one who actually finds it offensive is the one being disparaged. Essentially, it's begging the question to say that it's cherry picking.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:38 am UTC

People are a lot like Dogs.
It does not, really, matter what you call us.

More important is the Way you call us.
The way you act may or may not be offensive.

I have been offended by what a person OutSide my group was called.
I thought it was undignified.

In Spanish some people call all male servers, Young Man.
Even when that man is Old. I was told it was ok. (shrug)

It bothered me. We talked about it during dinner. I thought there should be a more formal word.
Maybe it touched a place inside me where Black Men were called, "Boy" even when they were Adults.

I have seen other people OutSide the culture defend the Culture with Gusto.
I was having a nice time with the Head Gardener at a Native Medicinal Garden.

We were taking turns smelling plants.
Often that is done by crushing a leaf.

A White Woman saw me do it.
She went after me.

She told me how Sacred the plants and garden are and "Do Not Touch!"
The man I was with thought it was funny. Sort of. He was scared of her.

It is silly and fun to try on other people's cultural stuff.
Some of it might fit like a glove.

Other parts will fit as awkwardly as your own culture does.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:45 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?p=3611089#p3611089 - Heisenberg links to a study finding 67% think the term is offensive.


Read it - that study is toilet paper quality. Rewrite the same question and the celtics and the vikings would get the same outcomes.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:14 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:More people identifying as conservative than liberal is not inherently a sign of bad data. It just means one viewpoint happens to be more popular.

No, it isn't. That's the point. No matter the number of points of definitions of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' you could point out, a not insignificant portion of the self-identifying 'conservatives' agree with all of the 'liberal' positions. That's not 'conservative' is a viewpoint that's more popular - it just means the word is more popular.

leady wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Heisenberg links to a study finding 67% think the term is offensive.
Read it - that study is toilet paper quality. Rewrite the same question and the celtics and the vikings would get the same outcomes.

Normally people point out the problem, and don't skip past that their post was so badly worded as to be ignored by the conversation that flowed past them. Merely asking if something is racist isn't, in itself, racist.

-Crissa

eSOANEM wrote:
Crissa wrote:Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw.
As a general principle, this is terrible. It plays into the common bi-erasing and have-you-had-surgery-yet transphobic mindset.

...And no. Merely pointing out that my voice isn't useful on this topic doesn't erase my opinion nor my identification or heritage. Checking to see if your self-identification is or isn't leading you the wrong way doesn't in any way say whether you'll use that information wrongly.

Heck, not checking self-identification could lead you the wrong way in wiping out the identity of some peoples - in this case especially by erasing the millions that live in tribal lands for the millions that don't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:10 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:As has had to be pointed out in this thread numerous times, something being offensive (to any number of people) does not necessarily mean people have to stop using a word. That's each person's choice. It's also everyone else's choice whether they want to call someone a dick for using it anyway.


Except that is exactly what the Redskins example is about. Cmon. You know as well as I do that the copyright issue is about making them change the name. It's not a voluntary choice, it's about trying to force it on the team. So, dispense with the nonsense that this is all about choice.

To the second point, if some term offends californians but not americans, I'm fine saying that term is offensive enough not to be used. That's not cherry picking, that's just saying "hey, this term offends such and such a group". In this case, it's only because it's already because you've already decided that, if it offends any group, "redskin" ought to offend native americans generally that this appears cherry picking.


Even if it's a term that refers to Americans in general?

You are disconnecting who is referred to from who is offended. Ya'll are relying as identity as the arbiter of legitimacy for offense...until that bar doesn't get the results ya'll want. Then you change it.

Based on the term itself, one could conclude that the people it's actually disparaging is non-white-passing natives, or possibly those who are white-passing. I suspect the former as a set is closer to that of natives living on reservations than it is to the general native american population.

So, if I just saw this term without the pre-conceived notion that "redskin" was a slur for native american, I'd probably conclude that a group much more like the one who actually finds it offensive is the one being disparaged. Essentially, it's begging the question to say that it's cherry picking.


Lives on reservation/doesn't live on reservation is not inherently the same as white-passing/non white-passing. You'll want evidence to back that assumption up.

leady wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?p=3611089#p3611089 - Heisenberg links to a study finding 67% think the term is offensive.


Read it - that study is toilet paper quality. Rewrite the same question and the celtics and the vikings would get the same outcomes.


It is some evidence, but it is somewhat weak evidence. Still, I think it is reasonable to suppose that the subset who lives on a reservation has a different viewpoint than the larger NA population. They might well, even if that particular study is poor.

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:More people identifying as conservative than liberal is not inherently a sign of bad data. It just means one viewpoint happens to be more popular.

No, it isn't. That's the point. No matter the number of points of definitions of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' you could point out, a not insignificant portion of the self-identifying 'conservatives' agree with all of the 'liberal' positions. That's not 'conservative' is a viewpoint that's more popular - it just means the word is more popular.


More people identifying as conservative than liberal does not lead one to that result. You need significant additional data. Are you forgetting an important part of the study, perhaps?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:36 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:More people identifying as conservative than liberal is not inherently a sign of bad data. It just means one viewpoint happens to be more popular.

No, it isn't. That's the point. No matter the number of points of definitions of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' you could point out, a not insignificant portion of the self-identifying 'conservatives' agree with all of the 'liberal' positions. That's not 'conservative' is a viewpoint that's more popular - it just means the word is more popular.

leady wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Heisenberg links to a study finding 67% think the term is offensive.
Read it - that study is toilet paper quality. Rewrite the same question and the celtics and the vikings would get the same outcomes.

Normally people point out the problem, and don't skip past that their post was so badly worded as to be ignored by the conversation that flowed past them. Merely asking if something is racist isn't, in itself, racist.

-Crissa

eSOANEM wrote:
Crissa wrote:Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw.
As a general principle, this is terrible. It plays into the common bi-erasing and have-you-had-surgery-yet transphobic mindset.

...And no. Merely pointing out that my voice isn't useful on this topic doesn't erase my opinion nor my identification or heritage. Checking to see if your self-identification is or isn't leading you the wrong way doesn't in any way say whether you'll use that information wrongly.

Heck, not checking self-identification could lead you the wrong way in wiping out the identity of some peoples - in this case especially by erasing the millions that live in tribal lands for the millions that don't.

That last line.
Indians that don't 'Go Home' ever.

They are Indians.
They often have a card.

Still...Sometimes Indian is like Jewish.
You can be Born a Jew.

Not a darned thing you can do about it.
Make the best of a Weird Situation.

Sometimes people convert.
Converting to Indian is a lot harder, easier and fuzzier than converting to Jew.

I did it, once.
I completely converted to Indian.

The first year the Indians went into the Mountians without me,
My Mom asked them to Not Do That, Again.

After that, I went into the Mountans, too.
It is Deeply Strange and Wonderful up there.

My Mother thought the Indians were Insane.
There was no running water in The House.

All Pissing and Pooping was done In The Wild.
Converting to Jew is both harder and easier.

How many times must a man Poop OutSide, before He Knows He's a Man?
The answer my friend is Blowing in the Wind. The answer is Blowing in the Wind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6M7bfGw62E

You take our Culture.
We'll take your Culture.

We'll use the Parts we like.
You use the Parts you like.

I like Indoor Plumbing.
I must be a lot like my Mom.

White.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:05 pm UTC

leady wrote:Rewrite the same question and the celtics and the vikings would get the same outcomes.
Your response to a study that you don't think is high quality is to pull a claim straight out of your ass with literally no basis in reality?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:More people identifying as conservative than liberal is not inherently a sign of bad data. It just means one viewpoint happens to be more popular.

No, it isn't. That's the point. No matter the number of points of definitions of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' you could point out, a not insignificant portion of the self-identifying 'conservatives' agree with all of the 'liberal' positions. That's not 'conservative' is a viewpoint that's more popular - it just means the word is more popular.

More people identifying as conservative than liberal does not lead one to that result. You need significant additional data. Are you forgetting an important part of the study, perhaps?

To what result? To find out that oops, conservatism isn't as popular as the self-identification would warrant?

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:53 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:More people identifying as conservative than liberal does not lead one to that result. You need significant additional data. Are you forgetting an important part of the study, perhaps?

To what result? To find out that oops, conservatism isn't as popular as the self-identification would warrant?

-Crissa


To actually support your claim. You just wildly jumped from a claim regarding conservative/liberal self identification to unsupported claims.

You need a connection. Like, say, than people who identify as conservative admit to not voting that way. That's interesting, and you can use that to build further. But you can't reasonably just jump from "more people identify as conservative" to "hah, conservatism isn't popular". That's crazy.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:22 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
Crissa wrote:Specifically not checking self-identification is a flaw.
As a general principle, this is terrible. It plays into the common bi-erasing and have-you-had-surgery-yet transphobic mindset.

...And no. Merely pointing out that my voice isn't useful on this topic doesn't erase my opinion nor my identification or heritage. Checking to see if your self-identification is or isn't leading you the wrong way doesn't in any way say whether you'll use that information wrongly.

Heck, not checking self-identification could lead you the wrong way in wiping out the identity of some peoples - in this case especially by erasing the millions that live in tribal lands for the millions that don't.


I was talking about applying the principle in general. My post then went on to outline something which has a similar effect in this case but avoids the terribleness you get from appointing someone arbiter of identity.

I.e. if native americans living on reservations tend to find something offensive but other native americans don't, it's a bit of a jump saying that thing is offensive to native americans without saying you know more about native culture than natives (and so can say who is and isn't "legitimately" native). On the other hand, it's completely fine to say this offends natives living on reservations and so shouldn't be done.

Tyndmyr wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:As has had to be pointed out in this thread numerous times, something being offensive (to any number of people) does not necessarily mean people have to stop using a word. That's each person's choice. It's also everyone else's choice whether they want to call someone a dick for using it anyway.


Except that is exactly what the Redskins example is about. Cmon. You know as well as I do that the copyright issue is about making them change the name. It's not a voluntary choice, it's about trying to force it on the team. So, dispense with the nonsense that this is all about choice.


The idea that corporations are people is a bizarre fiction (in every sense except legally) that only serves the interests of their higher-ups and so the analogy you're trying to make fails.

Anyway, if their's a rule already that offensive terms can't be copyrighted, whatever the original intention of the suit, legally, all that's happened is SCOTUS have said "this term is offensive", everything else is just the law doing what it's required to.

Legally, this is totally indisputably fine. The only attackable point is whether or not it was offensive.

So, this nation thinks the redskins are being dicks by using that name, all they've done is forced one of the more powerful bodies in the US to state its position on whether what they're doing's dickish. They said it is. I don't have a problem with people asking other people who think something is dickish to say so so, even if we do accept that corporations are people, no forcing is going on here (except maybe in forcing SCOTUS off the fence). The redskins can still continue using their name just as someone can choose to keep using racist slurs despite being told it makes them a dick provided they're willing to suffer the consequences (which could include social ostracism, being fired, being rejected from jobs and many other things analogous to the revenue reduction from losing copyright).

Tyndmyr wrote:
To the second point, if some term offends californians but not americans, I'm fine saying that term is offensive enough not to be used. That's not cherry picking, that's just saying "hey, this term offends such and such a group". In this case, it's only because it's already because you've already decided that, if it offends any group, "redskin" ought to offend native americans generally that this appears cherry picking.


Even if it's a term that refers to Americans in general?

You are disconnecting who is referred to from who is offended. Ya'll are relying as identity as the arbiter of legitimacy for offense...until that bar doesn't get the results ya'll want. Then you change it.


Eh, my thing has always been that you should look at the group who is offended, listen to the views of people from that group and then decide what to do with that information. Generally if the group who's offended isn't the group referred to or disparaged then I'm likely to choose to not change my actions; if on the other hand the group who's offended are disparaged by the term, I'm pretty damn likely to take that in consideration and, if I think it a non-negligible group, will try to change my actions.

For instance, the word Spanish refers, in English, to the inhabitants of Spain. Many Basque and Catalan people get very angry about its use to refer to them (this was more true of the Basque country during the heyday of ETA, but it's still pretty true and Cataluña's still got a strong political separatist movement as I believe does the Basque country). Most Castillian Spanish people don't care. I'm perfectly modifying my behaviour to try to avoid referring to someone who's Catalan or Basque as Spanish where possible (i.e. when referring to the group of people living in Spain, or an olympic team or such, I'll probably still use "Spanish" but if someone called Arkaitz tells me he's from Bilbao, I'm likely to describe him as Basque) even though the vast majority of people the term usually refers to in English don't consider its use to describe them offensive.

Tyndmyr wrote:
Based on the term itself, one could conclude that the people it's actually disparaging is non-white-passing natives, or possibly those who are white-passing. I suspect the former as a set is closer to that of natives living on reservations than it is to the general native american population.

So, if I just saw this term without the pre-conceived notion that "redskin" was a slur for native american, I'd probably conclude that a group much more like the one who actually finds it offensive is the one being disparaged. Essentially, it's begging the question to say that it's cherry picking.


Lives on reservation/doesn't live on reservation is not inherently the same as white-passing/non white-passing. You'll want evidence to back that assumption up.


I didn't say it was. I suggested that natives living on reservations might be more representative of non-white passing than the general population. I have no evidence for it and I never claimed it as a fact, it was only ever a suggestion.



about my earlier post:

(sorry for telling everyone to fuck right off, it was uncalled for. My bike just got stolen and I was pissed off, I shouldn't have taken it out on you guys)
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Lazar » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:28 pm UTC

According to this, American Indians who identify as full-blooded are more likely to live on a reservation than those who identify as mixed.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:As has had to be pointed out in this thread numerous times, something being offensive (to any number of people) does not necessarily mean people have to stop using a word. That's each person's choice. It's also everyone else's choice whether they want to call someone a dick for using it anyway.


Except that is exactly what the Redskins example is about. Cmon. You know as well as I do that the copyright issue is about making them change the name. It's not a voluntary choice, it's about trying to force it on the team. So, dispense with the nonsense that this is all about choice.


The idea that corporations are people is a bizarre fiction (in every sense except legally) that only serves the interests of their higher-ups and so the analogy you're trying to make fails.

Anyway, if their's a rule already that offensive terms can't be copyrighted, whatever the original intention of the suit, legally, all that's happened is SCOTUS have said "this term is offensive", everything else is just the law doing what it's required to.

Legally, this is totally indisputably fine. The only attackable point is whether or not it was offensive.


It is amusing how you so quickly jump from dismissing something as being of no importance because it is merely a legal thing to upholding your side because, gosh darn it, it's legal.

Is your morality based on legality or not? Because if not, then the legality is unimportant for both. If it is...then your objection is utterly pointless.

Do you have any justification besides "cuz it's legal?" for the copyright thing?

And in the end, you can talk about corporate or non corporate all you want, but that aspect is frigging irrelevant. You do not need to be a corporation to hold or not hold a trademark. And seriously, yelling about corporations utterly ignores that this is, in the end, coming down to what actual people do. This is about an attempt to force a change in behavior in what people do.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:34 pm UTC

I'm arguing that this behaviour is fine.

Given that your analogy implied corporations are people, I thought I should address that first. Having addressed it, I thought that, any argument I put forward would be criticised as assuming that they aren't people. By arguing from the perspective that they are persons (the one you seemed to hold), I intended to avoid this.

I then argued it first on legal grounds and then by analogy to my initial statement that people can choose to do what they want in response to the information that something offends people and that other people are also free to respond to that. So yeah, the last paragraph of that section is the additional justification than "because it's legal".

The corporations are people thing is, as you say, irrelevant to the thrust of the argument, it was just something I thought should be challenged and not some cornerstone of my argument in this thread.

Essentially, you seem to have missed this entire paragraph despite it following immediately from the bit you quoted:

esoanem wrote:So, this nation thinks the redskins are being dicks by using that name, all they've done is forced one of the more powerful bodies in the US to state its position on whether what they're doing's dickish. They said it is. I don't have a problem with people asking other people who think something is dickish to say so so, even if we do accept that corporations are people, no forcing is going on here (except maybe in forcing SCOTUS off the fence). The redskins can still continue using their name just as someone can choose to keep using racist slurs despite being told it makes them a dick provided they're willing to suffer the consequences (which could include social ostracism, being fired, being rejected from jobs and many other things analogous to the revenue reduction from losing copyright).


So yeah, that paragraph is talking about it in terms of people doing things and what happens to people and what they'll have to do is trivially deducible from it.

The main point to take from my post is that, as I've said before, if someone tells you something's racist, you're free to do what you like with that information but you should know that other people are free to judge you for it and call you a dick and, fire you and not give you jobs etc. because they think you're a racist. All that's happened here is that a group thought something was offensive and they've now got a particularly powerful group to also come off the fence (they happened to agree). This will lead to lost revenue exactly as someone might lose revenue by being fired if their boss is told that they're a raging bigot.

tl;dr: corporation != people was an aside not an argument, yes I agree it is about what people do, but I'm fine with what they're doing here.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby jseah » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:57 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:The main point to take from my post is that, as I've said before, if someone tells you something's racist, you're free to do what you like with that information but you should know that other people are free to judge you for it and call you a dick and, fire you and not give you jobs etc. because they think you're a racist. All that's happened here is that a group thought something was offensive and they've now got a particularly powerful group to also come off the fence (they happened to agree). This will lead to lost revenue exactly as someone might lose revenue by being fired if their boss is told that they're a raging bigot.
What would you think if someone who thought those people weren't dicks (ie. disagreed with those who think so) decided that he wasn't going to let that go?
"You think the redskins team are dicks and are boycotting them?! You don't have to come to work tomorrow. "

Can one make an argument that this is effectively discrimination? If you are allowed to say "I think this guy is dickish and I shall fire him", you can do that for just about anything. Because what causes / does not cause offense is vaguely defined.

Having said that, let's say population group A refers to group B as redskins. Group B says "screw you, that's offensive to us, we shall fire you and boycott your stores". Group A goes "oh really, fine, we think your being offensive to us by restricting our freedom of expression /insert whatever justification here/. We'll fire you and boycott your stores too!"

If everyone followed this and resorted to economic retaliation whenever they called each other dicks, I suspect quite alot of things are going to break. Of course, most people like money more than not associating with dickish people, so I doubt the sky's going to fall down. But still, this seems suboptimal.

...
"Hey these guys are trying to say *something primary culture finds offensive*, boycott!!11!"

It could also end very badly if most of the society thinks that way. If anything that causes offense is grounds for economic retaliation by wider society, then the primary culture of a country is able to impose its values on everyone in that country by isolating everything it doesn't like. Even including movements that try to change said values/perceptions.

"My cashier is buying an insurance plan that covers birth control? That's murder, fire him. "
"That CEO's being a dick by investing in Big Oil, boycott his company now!"
"You don't like gays? Next!"
"You, /some black guy/, don't think the n-word is offensive? Good, when can you start?"
*looks redskins team t-shirt* "Sorry, this house is already rented out. "
"You have to read the employment contract with one hand on this bible if you want to be hired. "
"Their representative's a holocaust denialist? Tell his company that they must fire him or they lose this contract. "


Social weapons, especially when it harnesses economic power, has the ability to perpetrate some extreme injustices.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:03 am UTC

jseah wrote: Because what causes / does not cause offense is vaguely defined.
Fortunately, as usual, the issue is not what causes offense but what causes harm.

Also, though "they started it!" is usually dismissed as childish, it is actually a completely valid point to make. If you punch me in the face because you're a dick and I punch you back because I don't want you to do it again, one of our actions was more justified than the other.

It looks like you really really want to drag this into "you can't fight hate with hate" and "you should tolerate my intolerance" territory, but both of those tropes are no less stupid here than everywhere else.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:06 am UTC

Really?
The highest law in the US has gone Full Circle?
How interesting is That?

I suppose I better read the Original Post, again.
You can't get On Board, because you are Black.
You can't get On Board, because I don't like you.

ok. It, sort of, works.
The Government is not allowed to do that; Are they?

Racist, dickish, schizophrenic, black guys on parole and strong meds might not be everyone's Cup of Tea.
That sort of man might have social needs. Is the government allowed to decide you are Too Dickish to live?

(oh, Crap.) We are discussing the US.
Things have sure changed in the US.

Things got better for a while.
Now things got worse, again.

How will this change things for the common Joe?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby jseah » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jseah wrote: Because what causes / does not cause offense is vaguely defined.
Fortunately, as usual, the issue is not what causes offense but what causes harm.

When were we talking about causing harm? I always thought we were talking about offense here?

Clearly, stealing someone's wallet is harmful in a way that wearing their cultural dress in inappropriate ways is not? Or perhaps you are making a case that it is? (if so, feel free to make that argument or link me to the post, I must have missed it or misinterpreted it)

gmalivuk wrote:Also, though "they started it!" is usually dismissed as childish, it is actually a completely valid point to make. If you punch me in the face because you're a dick and I punch you back because I don't want you to do it again, one of our actions was more justified than the other.

It looks like you really really want to drag this into "you can't fight hate with hate" and "you should tolerate my intolerance" territory, but both of those tropes are no less stupid here than everywhere else.
Eeek, perhaps I went a bit too meta, did I drop a level somewhere? I was never talking about justification.

It doesn't have to be just retaliation or who started it, what about "he insulted *X cultural icon of the primary culture*! Boycott his store!". I mean, like say some store owner took the lord's name in vain in the bible belt or something equally crazy.
"He doesn't attend church! Don't hire the heretic!" (never mind that he's a christian of some unusual denomination)
Or to re-use an earlier example, a guy who walks around carrying a fake medal of honour. If an employer finds out and decides to fail his interview for that reason (and says so to his face), then that's also another example.

Not all of my examples were ones of retaliation.
Quite a few of them were things that people legitimately feel that others are being dickish for doing. (eg. Big Oil, birth control/abortion)
Some are positive discrimination towards who aren't offended by the perpetrator's dickishness. (eg. black guy & n-word, swearing the contract over the bible)
Some of them are also retaliation in the "correct" direction. (not liking gays, holocaust denialist)

If not hiring people because they are gay is illegal... not hiring people because they don't like gays is legal?


It still results in my final conclusion. Social weapons, when used to justify exertion of economic power, can be used to impose values on others through what is effectively coercion.

You may have gathered from my other threads that I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea. Just that this awareness means that we will have to pick our primary values rather more carefully and have to be a bit more... judicious and transparent in the use of social pressure, especially when trying to use economic power.
Either that or just ban it totally. No discrimination against anyone along any non-relevant factors, period. But that's probably not feasible.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:15 pm UTC

What other people wear on their Shirts does matter, a little.
Don't you have any Personal Experiences?

I do.
Loads.

Once, I had been through Hell.
I was resting in a large guest house.

The place had a Buddist Feel to it.
I was feeling fairly relaxed.

As I was eating my Beakfast one day a group of people walked in.
Those were Big People. I, sort of, cowered. I am small and I was alone.

Four mixed gender each 6 feet tall or better.
One of the Men squared off with me.

He was we wearing a shirt that was like a BillBoard. He was Huge.
White letters on Black Shirt, "We Gladly Slit the Throats of Those that Cower"

I had just been cowering.
I wanted to talk to him about his shirt.

He did not want to talk to me.
He had an opportunity to slit my throat.

I told him I had cowered.

Under most conditions,
I might have thought the shirt was funny.

I will never know.

Under those conditions,
I did not think the shirt was funny.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
leady wrote:Rewrite the same question and the celtics and the vikings would get the same outcomes.
Your response to a study that you don't think is high quality is to pull a claim straight out of your ass with literally no basis in reality?


technincally correct - the best form of correct

I was naturally assuming the question "Is the term Celtics a term that refers to a cultural group or offensive to a cultural group? Yes / No" would also achieve a similar result, almost regardless of who you ask, besides gibbering illiterates. If you think thats a controversial statement then ....

For instance, the word Spanish refers, in English, to the inhabitants of Spain. Many Basque and Catalan people get very angry about its use to refer to them (this was more true of the Basque country during the heyday of ETA, but it's still pretty true and Cataluña's still got a strong political separatist movement as I believe does the Basque country). Most Castillian Spanish people don't care. I'm perfectly modifying my behaviour to try to avoid referring to someone who's Catalan or Basque as Spanish where possible (i.e. when referring to the group of people living in Spain, or an olympic team or such, I'll probably still use "Spanish" but if someone called Arkaitz tells me he's from Bilbao, I'm likely to describe him as Basque) even though the vast majority of people the term usually refers to in English don't consider its use to describe them offensive.


A fairly relevent example. Interestinly one where someone from Catalan would point out they aren't Spanish and might be offended to be called Spanish and yet vocally support "Spain" in the world cup

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:34 pm UTC

jseah, you're still trying to equate things that aren't equal. My example with retaliation was just one illustration of that.

jseah wrote:If not hiring people because they are gay is illegal... not hiring people because they don't like gays is legal?
Absolutely. Sexuality should be and in many places is a protected class. It's something you can't change and has no bearing on your ability to perform your job. Homophobia isn't and shouldn't be protected. It is absolutely a choice and does affect your ability to do your job in a world where homosexuality exists.


It still results in my final conclusion. Social weapons, when used to justify exertion of economic power, can be used to impose values on others through what is effectively coercion.

You may have gathered from my other threads that I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea. Just that this awareness means that we will have to pick our primary values rather more carefully and have to be a bit more... judicious and transparent in the use of social pressure, especially when trying to use economic power.
Yes congratulations you have successfully realized that weapons can be used against everyone.

I'm not sure what "primary value" you think that relates to, though. Surely no one's primary values are so limited and superficial as to include silly things like "social weapons are good".

Primary values don't include or imply things like that. Rather, they imply things like which behaviors and circumstances make which people valid targets of which weapons. No real person has values that imply absurd absolutes like "refusing to hire someone is always good" or "refusing to hire someone is always bad", so your apparently startling realization that in fact neither is the case doean't mean any real person has to pick their values more carefully.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby addams » Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:22 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We don't need to agree on ethical axioms to understand that people from the cultures being appropriated tend to find appropriation problematic, and that the decision of others to go on wearing those things despite the objections amounts to a decision to disregard those people's feelings.

And when an Indian tells you it's shitty of your white ass to wear a bindi and sari to get likes on Instagram while she faces daily harassment or worse for doing so, that is not equivalent to you telling her it's shitty for her to complain about what you're wearing.

On one side of the equation there are actual hate crimes, and on the other there are some bruised egos because people no longer let you treat other cultures as your fashion statement without calling you out on your shit.

Wait a moment.
What?

I know.
I am late to the party.

Still...What?
It is not ok to where the clothing of other cultures?

Why??
I am not in any danger of crossing that Line, today.

I have crossed that line at a Run in the past.
Why is it not ok to wear the clothes or other cultures?

If you slip into a Judges Robes; is it OK?
Putting on a Formal Headdress would make getting in and out of the car a Royal Pain.

I like Comfortable interesting clothes.
Of course, I can make Horrible Fashon Choices.

Without guidance and no restrictions; Even God does not know what I might wear.
Well...?Have you never asked an adult professional person, "Who dressed you?"

Does everyone dress The Same?
Why can't other people wear the clothing styles of Indians? East or West or American?

Everyone in the World is wearing the Work Clothes of the US circa. 1930.
Or; They are wearing the Baby's Clothes of the US 1830.

Why are people restricted in trying Fashion Flare?
They are only clothes.

Clothes with all their symbolism are less important than Hair Style and easier to change.
No more Indian Clothes, unless a person looks Indian?

really?
oh. ok.

what is the penalty, again?
I might be tempted, anyway.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests