[RD] Cultural Appropriation: The Solution?

[Akka]

Still true nevertheless.
Which is probably what makes you mad.

 

[metatron]

Disclaimer:
I have to apologise to everyone else since we are by now rather off topic here, arguably even more off topic than the other tangents this thread seems to wholly consist of by now.
But as it stands - i suppose - Valka and i would probably walk away from this both kinda grumpy, so i hope you grant us the latitute to try to apply band-aids here.

It's hardly "butting in" when you reference me or quote one of my posts and then go on to post something snide.

No. I was talking to warpus.
You quoted me.
You did so in the spirit of disagreeing with me (as you are free to do).
You know that the two of us have wildly divergent positions on the Famous Five. So that i would quote you in return to affirm this disagreement can't come as a surprise to you.

is not polite.

No, actually that is civil rejection of a - repeated - dubious claim.
Crediting the Famous Five with your right to vote is more than a mere stretch.

I did not say I wanted to be in the Senate

My point was, that while having the sexist restriction thrown out certainly was significant, the Canadian Senate is hardly the one place a woman with ambitions vis a vis strengthening the place of women in Canadian society in [the current year] would find attractive in comparison with other political offices.

Since it appears to be impossible for you to refrain from being snide in your replies to me, you and I are done with this conversation.

1. In my view: When you tell someone that you are annoyed by them and don't want to talk to them anymore, you don't get to have the last word.
You get to make your statement; They get to respond to the effect of "Fine! I don't exactly have to talk to you right now either" or "Fine! Feel free to reengage if you happen to change your mind" and they can briefly state their assessment, just as you did.
You then don't go back to litigate the two statements.
That actually is impolite.

2.
Generally, since you insist that we make some sort of general statement about each others person here:

What i find at least mildly taxing in trying to argue with you is not that you are opinionated (i quite like that, it would be hypocritical if i din't), but that you often don't recognise charity, appreciation or conciliation when it is offered.
Take my post about the new ten dollar bill:
You - apparently - didn't see any positive exposure in that. Never mind how many, say, US Americans or Europeans may have not heard about the bill before. Never mind how many, say, US Americans or Europeans may have not heard about Ms. Desmond before, never mind how many, say, US Americans or Europeans may have not heard about the CMHR before, never mind that i repeatedly and harshly critiqued US, EU and German money and national symbols throughout the thread, never mind that one of the first happenings in that thread was Canadian input talking waaay down to the US (something, that you personally do as well, quite often in case you haven't noticed) never mind that i unambiguously lauded this change as a very good thing (i may have used the term "amazeballs"), never mind that i directly contrasted this with the perilous fate of the proposed new twenty dollar bill in the United States.

No, what seems to have been most significant to you, appears to be that i felt compelled to concede that the CMHR had "issues" (which is a very gentle way to describe that people are getting terribly upset about not only big matters but also about very small ones, possible down to square footage in the single digits)
...and that i... actually didn't so much criticise the old bills as i had a rather serious and tonally mainstream Canadian do it.

And, on one hand, you spend a significant ammount of time lamenting Canadian Conservatives and their recent era of dominance, often on points on which i would agree with you. On the other hand it is this era that brought about the Frontier Series. And Harper was involved enough with the CMHR.

Also:
Never mind that i also quoted you there, for the purpose of credit, so as to remind everybody that you were the one who originally introduced the issue of Canada soon (at that time) getting said bill rather than make it appear that this was exclusively an input on my part.​

And never mind that i have to be ever so slightly flippant in that thread so as to mitigate the awkwardness of somebody being obsessed with physical currency to such a degree.

3. On the point of the matter:

• i am some person on another continent who, in this case, has heralded a minor but still significant achievement for your country as well as feminism (the actual thing, without quotation marks) and anti-racism in general (this new bill literally makes the world a better place, even outside of Canada, however minutely).
  You feel that they have been somewhat rude in doing so ("snide" as you say).
• You would have been granted the right to vote in provincial elections in 1916 and in federal elections in 1918, if i am not in error. And in 1927 the Famous Five filed their petition.
• And today a young Asian Canadian woman or a young First Nations woman may visit Ottawa.
  And she may have a living great-grandmother who actually lived as an adult in Canada before, say, 1947.
  And she may see the likeness of Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung on Parliament hill.

And we are left to ponder the nature of "politeness".

 

[inthesomeday]

Still true nevertheless.
Which is probably what makes you mad.

Do you think I’m white?

 

[Lexicus]

Do you think I’m white?

You are asking snide questions of a dissident intellectual!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

long-winded excuses

If you don't want my input in threads, stop referencing me or quoting my posts.

 

[metatron]

If you don't want my input in threads, stop referencing me or quoting my posts.

Any difficulties of us talking to another notwithstanding i allways welcome your input.

Still: I was talking to warpus. You quoted me. I replied. You complained that i did.
It is not my fault when you involve yourself in a conversation.

 

[aelf]

Do you think I’m white?

ZING!

 

[Bootstoots]

Moderator Action: Lots of non-RD-quality posts lately. Don't troll the thread by making remarks/assumptions about the racial or other characteristics of posters, and don't post snide remarks or brief snappy responses that serve only to make people angrier. The metatron-Valka argument stops now too.

 

[Kyriakos]

Imo the best reason to be against the sense of cultural appropriation is that it is regulating interest of basic level; if people want to actually study something, they will. Imagine asking them to study stuff before wearing a costume. I certainly didn't know anything about Zoro, but dressed up as Zoro a couple times in elementary school costume parties. Others did dress as indian. We did cause we liked the costumes; kids having fun.
Most won't go on to read about what the costume refers to at depth, but this is to be expected, and happens all the time. Making the actual basic interest a taboo will definitely not help anyone, imo.

 

[Lexicus]

Imagine asking them to study stuff before wearing a costume.

Done properly, it seems like a good idea. Not in a "you must read these books before wearing this costume" but "hey, if you think this guy is cool maybe you'd like to learn some stuff about where he comes from"

 

[Kyriakos]

Done properly, it seems like a good idea. Not in a "you must read these books before wearing this costume" but "hey, if you think this guy is cool maybe you'd like to learn some stuff about where he comes from"

Of course. Yet it isn't good to make it a prerequisite

 

[Evie]

Of course not. But if you (through lack of information) make a mistake and use teh costume in a disprespectful or harmful way, you should apologize.

I mean, that's a pretty simple concept, actually. If you disrespect someone (even - and especially - if you didn't mean to - you apologize. That's what apologies are for: addressing insult or injury you didn't intend. But for some unfathomable (to me) reason apologizing has turned into this unthinkable offense against the self to some people...

 

[Akka]

Do you think I’m white?

Fun fact : I don't really think about skin colour. That's YOUR obsession, not mine.
What I do notice about you is that you feel like some clueless high-schooler or college student regurgitating what mindlessly what others taught him at their militant association.

As for the rest, yeah, most of the SJW of these forums are white male Americans, mostly ignorant of the rest of the world, and yet speaking in the name of everyone else and expecting everywhere to be like at home. And continuing to do so despite being repeatedly called on about
And yes, I can't shake the deep irony of the situation, especially as they seem to systematically do the very thing they spend their time fighting about (in this case, when people white-knighting about defending culture show the most blatant and willing ignorance of every culture but their own for example).

Moderator Action: The first paragraph is flaming and also a violation of the modtext warning I posted. Infraction issued. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

Latinx is simply an acknowledgement that operating on the assumption that "all are masculine until proven otherwise" is kinda sexist, in the same way that we've moved towards gender-neutral or gender-ambiguous terms in a lot of other things (e.g. fireman -> firefighter; waiter/ress -> server; steward/ess -> flight attendant, etc.). If it bothers you so much, you're also more than welcome to use latino/a, that's generally the terminology I use when I'm actually vocalizing the word.

Is that really analogous? English doesn't typically gender its nouns, so distinctions like "water/waitress" are deliberate, if not always conscious, attempts to draw a distinction on a basis of gender. It carries a baggage of expectations because the construct itself expresses those expectations, would not serve any semantic purpose if it didn't. I would tend to assume that there's less baggage attached to a basically grammatical construction like "Latino/Latina".

The value of going out of your way to write "Latino/a" or even defaulting to "Latina" seems to be in the action in itself, in making the point that the male is not a natural default, rather than a correction of a shortcoming in the language. If we were just looking for the most efficient route to parity, we'd simply delete the female gender altogether. (And doesn't that make me sound like some kind of linguistic incel.)

RIP this martyr of the Great Culture War of 1990-????

I mean, Pierce is an openly lesbian woman who's appearance was shut down by people who take a somewhat arcane objection to how her films have handled trans issue and have no indoor voice, I'm not sure it's a "culture war" thing on either side.

(It turns out that making queer people feel unsafe on campus is fine when you do it for the right reasons. Every day is an education.)

edit: And I want to be clear, the risk here isn't some sort of SJW FASCISM, because the only people who think that a bunch of twenty-year-old dorks have that much power are other twenty-year-old dorks who disagree with them. The risk is that institutions begin to preemptively prohibit anything remotely controversial, that the possibility of disagreement, constructive as well as acrimonious, is shut down in the pursuit of social peace.

"No Platform" campaigns are successful when they are targeted, when they create a cordon sanitaire against a certain clearly-defined category of reprehensible politics by making it too costly and too controversial for institutions to host representatives of that politics. When those same tactics are employed scattershot, without clear motivation beyond assuaging the protesters individual sense of voicelesness, and especially when the protesters are not asserting a specific disagreement so much as a more nebulous right to be heard disagreeing (as was apparently the case with the action against Pierce), the institutional response is to treat anything controversial as poisonous, and to host only the most boring and least controversial personalities.

If you want a picture of that future, imagine Hilary Clinton dabbing on your television screen, forever.

 

[inthesomeday]

Fun fact : I don't really think about skin colour. That's YOUR obsession, not mine.
What I do notice about you is that you feel like some clueless high-schooler or college student regurgitating what mindlessly what others taught him at their militant association.

Yes, in my high school they had mandatory SJW class. You received a grade based on a few things- you had to be queer, brown, female, and poor for an A. Sadly, as I am not female, I only earned a B in the class. The instruction was mostly transmitted via direct video into our eyes, which were forced open by Clockwork Orange indoctrination machines. This is where I learned my “obsession” with my skin color— not from any kind of socioeconomic experience or discrimination, mostly because of the globalist learning courses I had to take for my diploma.

I mean what do you think is going on in schools? Do you think I learned SJW math or something? If so, what do you think the source of that curriculum was? Did the Jews globalists draft it themselves at their annual meeting, or did they delegate it? What did they do with regular math? Your worldview is almost laughable.

Moderator Action: See post #248. There has been a mod warning on this thread already against acting out. This is an RD thread and mature discussion is warranted and expected from everyone. If this sort of behaviour does not stop, I will close the thread. --LM

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The ability to describe the near entirety of the subject in a such a concise and yet true sentence is pretty impressive

Thank you, but it was not a retoric question from me, i genuinely didnt know such thing could exist before reading this thread and still don't get it. I mean when i see Japanese women dancing flamenco or Americans running the bulls i feel flattered more than anything. I see this thing as some sort of politically correct apartheid.

 

[inthesomeday]

I see this thing as some sort of politically correct apartheid.

I mean this has gotta be a joke. How on earth could you ever think to compare the two?

 

[metalhead]

Thank you, but it was not a retoric question from me, i genuinely didnt know such thing could exist before reading this thread and still don't get it. I mean when i see Japanese women dancing flamenco or Americans running the bulls i feel flattered more than anything. I see this thing as some sort of politically correct apartheid.

Chances are if you put forth the effort to perform Flamenco in front of other people, you are doing it in a respectful way.

It's amazing to me how stridently people argue against "don't be a dick" as a valid ethos. Think there's a reason why?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So, for cultural appropriation to happen there must be a mocking element added to the imitation?

 

[luiz]

Chances are if you put forth the effort to perform Flamenco in front of other people, you are doing it in a respectful way.

It's amazing to me how stridently people argue against "don't be a dick" as a valid ethos. Think there's a reason why?

I think most people are not against not being dicks. It's the extreme aspect of people against "cultural appropriation" that bothers. Like people harassing white folks with dread locks, or a girl with cancer for wearing a headdress (because apparently headdresses are inherently African, in SJW land). These are real cases, BTW, I'm not making them up. Including the harassed girl with cancer. The dicks are the ones who did the harassment, not the "cultural appropriators". And the SJWs who defend and relativize the abominable behavior of the dicks are also, well, dicks. And yes, there were "scholars" in the media arguing that the bald girl with cancer should not be wearing the headdress because she wasn't black. If being a dick were a crime, these SJWs would get the death penalty.