• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Left Outside the Social-Justice Movement's Small Tent (The Atlantic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
No they haven't. Idiots who made fun of the concept ruined it.

I think it's both.

You had people who started to use it for absolutely innocuous things and people started to catch up on it, and made fun of the concept. Once they started doing that, the entire well was poisoned, but certainly they didn't do it alone.
 

Mully

Member
The guy is a level headed person whose being excluded from an increasingly unreasonable movement with good intentions.

Radiolab recently posted a controversial episode of their podcast. It was about the college debate scene and how judges favor the rich white schools by allowing and even encouraging the tactic of fast paced, auctioneering style, microarguments. Essentially white schools have used a style where they talk as fast as possible, bringing up as many arguments as they can in the short amount of time each team is allowed to speak. The arguments these schools make aren't that nuanced, but the judges will punish schools (mostly schools with majority minority classes) who are either not taught how to use the auctioneering style or choose not to use it. In both cases, the main reason behind these schools not using the style comes from the fact that their students generally come from areas where their high schools were not up to white standards and are at a disadvantage when these students reach their respective colleges.

To combat and protest the microargument style that mostly white schools use, black schools and specifically black debaters have chosen to ignore the theme of any debate and instead argue that the whole modern concept of debate is racist. So, rather than debating about trade tariffs between countries, minority school debaters will argue that the debate itself is a tariff on black people because they have to change their style to the systemically exclusionary microargument style of white schools to win.

This is an extremely well thought out protest of the system at large. However, at a certain point minority debaters began to pair themselves up with other debaters that would be more sympathetic to judges. Which again, is a good idea, but the execution was more about calling other people racist or against the LGBT community than actually debating. For instance, a prominent black debater, paired up with a black, gay debater for the purpose of winning through chastising opposing debaters for being racist or against gays when those debaters would disagree with the black or gay debaters.

At a certain point it became less about debate and protesting and more about calling those that oppose them racist. In fact during the program one of Radiolab's host said he was going to play Devils Advocate with the person they were interviewing. The interviewee interrupted the host, and said, "Stop. Just stop," because the interviewee viewed any opinion or question against his tactic as racist.

The interviewee would later win the national championship for college debaters. The judge of the national championship said, that while he was conflicted because the protest team did not debate the topic, he chose the interviewee on the basis that the other team did not debate the topic brought up by the protest team.

The judge, just like the Ohlad's opponents chose to side with an unreasonable yet endearing tactic. Both circumstances set a precedent where a side who chooses to label any and all dissenters as racist, is rewarded.
 
If there is a valid reason for having "safe spaces" other than someones skin color (or culture) then I am all for it. If you want to segregate just because of race then that is racism.

Uh this is the exact point I am making. The discussion on these issues i entirely more complex than "this is racism" . If you cant even hear the discussion before you jump to that conclusion "ie what you didnt do in this instinct" you literally have no point above this "regressive left" that people are whining about. The discussion requires more nuance than "naw b, let me tell you what it is".
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
Political extremes of all kinds have been given massively heightened visibility by the internet age. It's a simple matter for a fringe group to gather together their supporters from around the world and online flash mob targets to make themselves look like a vast army.

What this situation requires more than ever is an understanding of vocal minorities and a renewed focus on watching what people do rather than listening only to what they claim. Still, the media and technology of the day make it difficult to navigate this shit.

The problem is the internet allows these extremists to essentially hijack legitimate movements. Once that happens the opposition can point and say, "Hey look, remember these totally reasonable protesters?Well just look at what they have turned into now! I told you they were are bunch of crazy Nazis!"

The court of public opinion then gets swayed because the extremists have begun to take over the headlines in the name of the movement. Cue backpeddling by legit members and claims of "Those people don't represent BLM or (insert movement here)."

I mean shit, it happens almost like clockwork these days.
 
This specific point is something that I see tossed around that I think people actually ignore what the left is sayimg about this. We had a thread on gaf about Australian Aboriginee people having their own computer lab on a university campus and people who agreed with it were being accused of "calling for segregation.

When I read posts like yours that reduce issues to points like this it reminds me why I find people calling out the regressive left hypocritical. This spelcific point alone is such a misconstruction of the actual point many people were making.

It reads exactly like the dismissive shit people are calling out.

I dont believe in regressive left, I believe there are people mature enough to have a conversation and people that simply cant and its independent of age or liberal vs conservative sway.

People took issue with it because a white student tried to use a computer that was not being used by anybody else at the time and he was turned away solely because of his race.
 
If there is a valid reason for having "safe spaces" other than someones skin color (or culture) then I am all for it. If you want to segregate just because of race then that is racism.

That isn't racism. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're applying a blanket definition without understanding context. What you define "safe spaces" isn't even a new concept. That's how ignorant you are.

“I knew, better than most Negroes, how many white people truly wanted to see American racial problems solved. I knew that many whites were as frustrated as Negroes. I’ll bet I got fifty letters some days from white people. The white people in meeting audiences would throng around me, asking me, after I had addressed them somewhere, ‘What can a sincere white person do?’

“When I say that here now, it makes me think about that little co-ed I told you about, the one who flew from her New England college down to New York and came up to me in the Nation of Islam’s restaurant in Harlem, and I told her that there was “nothing” she could do. I regret that I told her that. I wish that now I knew her name, or where I could telephone her, or write to her, and tell her what I tell white people now when they present themselves as being sincere, and ask me, one way or another, the same thing that she asked. The first thing I tell them is that at least where my own particular Black Nationalist organization, the Organization of Afro-American Unity, is concerned, they can’t join us. I have these very deep feelings that white people who want to join black organizations are really just taking the escapist way to salve their consciences. By visibly hovering near us, they are "proving" that they are "with us." But the hard truth is this isn't helping to solve America's racist problem. The Negroes aren't the racists. Where the really sincere white people have got to do their "proving" of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America's racism really is—and that's in their own home communities; America's racism is among their own fellow whites. That's where sincere whites who really mean to accomplish something have got to work.

“Aside from that, I mean nothing against any sincere whites when I say that as members of black organizations, generally whites’ very presence subtly renders the black organization automatically less effective. Even the best white members will slow down the Negroes’ discovery of what they need to do, and particularly of what they can do—for themselves, working by themselves, among their own kind, in their own communities.

“I sure don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but in fact I’ll even go so far as to say that I never really trust the kind of white people who are always so anxious to hang around Negroes, or to hang around in Negro communities. I don’t trust the kind of whites who love having Negroes always hanging around them. I don’t know—this feeling may be a throwback to the years when I was hustling in Harlem and all of those red-faced, drunk whites in the after hours clubs were always grabbing hold of some Negroes and talking about ‘I just want you to know you’re just as good as I am—.’ And then they got back in their taxicabs and black limousines and went back downtown to the places where they lived and worked where no blacks except servants had better get caught. But, anyway, I know that every time that whites join a black organization, you watch, pretty soon the blacks will be leaning to the whites to support it, and before you know it a black may be up front with a title, but the whites, because of their money, are the real controllers.

“I tell sincere white people, 'Work in conjunction with us—each of us working among our own kind.' Let sincere white individuals find all other white people they can who feel as they do—and let them form their own all-white groups, to work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist. Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people! We will completely respect our white co-workers. They will deserve every credit. We will give them every credit. We will meanwhile be working among our own kind, in our own black communities— showing and teaching black men in ways that only other black men can—that the black man has got to help himself. Working separately, the sincere white people and sincere black people actually will be working together.

In our mutual sincerity we might be able to show a road to the salvation of America’s very soul. It can only be salvaged if human rights and dignity, in full, are extended to black men. Only such real, meaningful actions as those which are sincerely motivated from a deep sense of humanism and moral responsibility can get at the basic causes that produce the racial explosions in America today. Otherwise, the racial explosions are only going to grow worse. Certainly nothing is ever going to be solved by throwing upon me and other so-called black ‘extremists’ and ‘demagogues’ the blame for the racism that is in America.”

~The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Alex Haley and Malcolm X: pp. 383–384.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
How is culture appropriation trivial?

The evidence for its destructive nature is pretty weak. Did Vanilla Ice actually harm black culture?

I think that that cultural appropriation can be ethically unfortunate, but not at all comparable to violent oppression, material inequity, or institutionalized discrimination.
 
Threads like this usually make me uncomfortable, because it usually ends up with people checking in with their anecdotes and making generalizations about "those people," and there's little dialogue but lots of disagreements over terminology and tone. And here I am, checking in with the same kind of thing. And we have the same discussion every time there's a bait-laden article decrying overzealous sophomores.

I think generalizations in situations like this just lead to more divisive discussion, and we could all use a little more understanding. It doesn't help when bad actors poison discussions like this to further their own agendas.
 

kirblar

Member
How is culture appropriation trivial?
When its primarily being used as a wedge for upper class white kids to morally police their classmates in a way that's where you couldn't tell the differemce between them and a Septa chanting "Shame Shame Shame."

Cultural appropriation is definitely a real and bad thing, but its something very specific and needs context. Cultural appropriation is NOT throwing a mexican themed party with burritos. (Google PHIesta) That's kids on the left doing the exact same kind of moral grandstanding that religious conserrvatives on the right do.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
The evidence for its destructive nature is pretty weak. Did Vanilla Ice actually harm black culture?

I think that that cultural appropriation can be ethically unfortunate, but not at all comparable to violent oppression, material inequity, or institutionalized discrimination.

Its destructiveness is almost irrelevant to me. If its disrespectful, not engaging it in it is often trivial. When American Indians complain about headdress costumes during Halloween it always seems like, well, a dick move to respond with "nu-uh you can't tell me how to treat your heritage" instead of just...I dunno, going as a vampire instead?
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
Uh this is the exact point I am making. The discussion on these issues i entirely more complex than "this is racism" . If you cant even hear the discussion before you jump to that conclusion "ie what you didnt do in this instinct" you literally have no point above this "regressive left" that people are whining about. The discussion requires more nuance than "naw b, let me tell you what it is".

Enlighten me then?
 
Isn't calling somebody an uncle Tom just as racist as the racism the are allegedly fighting against? It’s pretty much the race traitor equivalent.

And yeah, of course they censor other opinions, a discussion is hard and it’s not that easy to pat yourself all the time on your back, about how righteous you are, if somebody else does not think you deserve it.

Any time you disagree with someone that perceives you as going against the interests of the group you'll catch the label Uncle Tom. Right or Left they both do it. You see white people are allowed to engage in the full spectrum of political thought and ideology. They're allowed to be whatever they want. But Black folk are expected to get in line. And if you are perceived to be out of line you'll get hit with that slur. And odds are it typically gets said by white people. But not racist at all cause they know what's best for black people...you see...
 
People took issue with it because a white student tried to use a computer that was not being used by anybody else at the time and he was turned away solely because of his race.

Eh I know what the story was, the point is there is an interesting discussion to be had that doesn't boil down to "you're a regressive left" (w/e the fuck that means) if you understand the point of some (not all) of these situations. Its just a dumb simplification of broad social issues to go "herp derp I'm right these people are dumb" which is exactly what you are complaining these people do in the first place. Its hypocracy.
 

Eidan

Member
You get around much? If it's a thing, there are definitely plenty of examples out there. The Regressive Left is very real.

I think I get around quite a bit. But even if I didn't, it shouldn't surprise you that I haven't come across real-life examples of what is supposed to be a small minority of liberals. Unless, of course, we're trying to say that this is a much larger trend, which brings us back to my original point.
 
The evidence for its destructive nature is pretty weak. Did Vanilla Ice actually harm black culture?

I think that that cultural appropriation can be ethically unfortunate, but not at all comparable to violent oppression, material inequity, or institutionalized discrimination.

Vanilla Ice isn't an actually a good example of culture appropriation.
 
Ah yes yet another Atlantic article talking about those oh so crazy college liberals. Knew we were over due.

Yeah, these articles are as predictable as they are lame. If I never read another "Oh look a sane Republican" or "Liberal thinks liberals have gone too far" article it will be too soon.
 
This specific point is something that I see tossed around that I think people actually ignore what the left is sayimg about this. We had a thread on gaf about Australian Aboriginee people having their own computer lab on a university campus and people who agreed with it were being accused of "calling for segregation.

When I read posts like yours that reduce issues to points like this it reminds me why I find people calling out the regressive left hypocritical. This spelcific point alone is such a misconstruction of the actual point many people were making.

It reads exactly like the dismissive shit people are calling out.

I dont believe in regressive left, I believe there are people mature enough to have a conversation and people that simply cant and its independent of age or liberal vs conservative sway.

You're just taking out of it what you want in order to bolster your point, but while the Aboriginal situation is valid it doesn't invalidate that poster's point you singled out. More to it, what does giving Aboriginals a segregated computer lab on universities actually accomplish? The animosity towards them continues to exist, they are just bubbled away from it.

More importantly, the animosity can actually GROW b/c now the people who participate in it don't have to worry about immediate presence from those they're slandering, so it creates an echo chamber without imminent recourse (i.e threat of presence from Aboriginal students catching wind).

It doesn't address the root of the problem; if anything they should increase security to ensure that any possible conflicts and confrontations that have a potential to spiral out of control do not happen, b/c outside of that university it's not like those Aboriginal students are going to be afforded the same luxury of segregated facilities in the real world. Not unless they want Jim Crow and, well, I'm sure African-Americans from that era would be quick to point out how messed up that was (they didn't even ask for it).

Much the same, the problems minorities face in America aren't going to be resolved by segregating them into "safe space" facilities away from white people. If anything it makes the problems worst. This isn't a very hard conclusion to arrive to and yet some of you seem so eager to continue pushing the idea as if it's valid :/

I think I get around quite a bit. But even if I didn't, it shouldn't surprise you that I haven't come across real-life examples of what is supposed to be a small minority liberals. Unless, of course, we're trying to say that this is a much larger trend, which brings us back to my original point.

It's going to be something of a larger trend than a "small minority of liberals" when considering a person doesn't have to have ALL the traits of the Regressive Left to fall under that definition, and given there's a good few dozen million or so liberals in the country as it is. Even if a person shares one of those traits, that can classify them under the Regressive Left (if not exclusively).

The particular point of myself and others in the thread is that none of those traits are ideal in a society that should be truly progressive, so having just one of them in your value system and structure can cause problems. Ideas influence other ideas, ideas influence people, and so on.
 
When its primarily being used as a wedge for upper class white kids to morally police their classmates in a way that's where you couldn't tell the differemce between them and a Septa chanting "Shame Shame Shame."

Cultural appropriation is definitely a real and bad thing, but its something very specific and needs context. Cultural appropriation is NOT throwing a mexican themed party with burritos. (Google PHIesta) That's kids on the left doing the exact same kind of moral grandstanding that religious conserrvatives on the right do.

I agree and we seem to be making the same point.
 

kirblar

Member
Its destructiveness is almost irrelevant to me. If its disrespectful, not engaging it in it is often trivial. When American Indians complain about headdress costumes during Halloween it always seems like, well, a dick move to respond with "nu-uh you can't tell me how to treat your heritage" instead of just...I dunno, going as a vampire instead?
Yes, because its something spiritual and special to that culture where commodifying it is disrespectful.

But the thing is, for most things in a a culture? Thats not the case. People love sharing them, and its great to do so! Food, clothes, fashion trends, etc - these things are shared and sold without a problem, and everyone is better off for it.
 
Threads like this usually make me uncomfortable, because it usually ends up with people checking in with their anecdotes and making generalizations about "those people," and there's little dialogue but lots of disagreements over terminology and tone. And here I am, checking in with the same kind of thing. And we have the same discussion every time there's a bait-laden article decrying overzealous sophomores.

I think generalizations in situations like this just lead to more divisive discussion, and we could all use a little more understanding. It doesn't help when bad actors poison discussions like this to further their own agendas.

Agreed.
 

Jebusman

Banned
I dunno, going as a vampire instead?

Isn't a traditional vampire a construct of 18th century southeastern European folklore?

Isn't the modern day vampire (Dracula) an appropriation of those tales by an Irishman?

Isn't the speech mannerisms similar to "I Vant to Suck Your Blood" an insult to the romanian language?

Would Twilight not be seen as appropriating those tales and then whitewashing them? (Admittedly I've never actually seen/read Twilight, so if they're all actually Romanian and/or Slavic then props to them).

I'm only being a quarter serious here BTW.
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
That isn't racism. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're applying a blanket definition without understanding context. What you define "safe spaces" isn't even a new concept. That's how ignorant you are.

“I knew, better than most Negroes, how many white people truly wanted to see American racial problems solved. I knew that many whites were as frustrated as Negroes. I’ll bet I got fifty letters some days from white people. The white people in meeting audiences would throng around me, asking me, after I had addressed them somewhere, ‘What can a sincere white person do?’

“When I say that here now, it makes me think about that little co-ed I told you about, the one who flew from her New England college down to New York and came up to me in the Nation of Islam’s restaurant in Harlem, and I told her that there was “nothing” she could do. I regret that I told her that. I wish that now I knew her name, or where I could telephone her, or write to her, and tell her what I tell white people now when they present themselves as being sincere, and ask me, one way or another, the same thing that she asked. The first thing I tell them is that at least where my own particular Black Nationalist organization, the Organization of Afro-American Unity, is concerned, they can’t join us. I have these very deep feelings that white people who want to join black organizations are really just taking the escapist way to salve their consciences. By visibly hovering near us, they are "proving" that they are "with us." But the hard truth is this isn't helping to solve America's racist problem. The Negroes aren't the racists. Where the really sincere white people have got to do their "proving" of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America's racism really is—and that's in their own home communities; America's racism is among their own fellow whites. That's where sincere whites who really mean to accomplish something have got to work.

“Aside from that, I mean nothing against any sincere whites when I say that as members of black organizations, generally whites’ very presence subtly renders the black organization automatically less effective. Even the best white members will slow down the Negroes’ discovery of what they need to do, and particularly of what they can do—for themselves, working by themselves, among their own kind, in their own communities.

“I sure don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but in fact I’ll even go so far as to say that I never really trust the kind of white people who are always so anxious to hang around Negroes, or to hang around in Negro communities. I don’t trust the kind of whites who love having Negroes always hanging around them. I don’t know—this feeling may be a throwback to the years when I was hustling in Harlem and all of those red-faced, drunk whites in the after hours clubs were always grabbing hold of some Negroes and talking about ‘I just want you to know you’re just as good as I am—.’ And then they got back in their taxicabs and black limousines and went back downtown to the places where they lived and worked where no blacks except servants had better get caught. But, anyway, I know that every time that whites join a black organization, you watch, pretty soon the blacks will be leaning to the whites to support it, and before you know it a black may be up front with a title, but the whites, because of their money, are the real controllers.

“I tell sincere white people, 'Work in conjunction with us—each of us working among our own kind.' Let sincere white individuals find all other white people they can who feel as they do—and let them form their own all-white groups, to work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist. Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people! We will completely respect our white co-workers. They will deserve every credit. We will give them every credit. We will meanwhile be working among our own kind, in our own black communities— showing and teaching black men in ways that only other black men can—that the black man has got to help himself. Working separately, the sincere white people and sincere black people actually will be working together.

In our mutual sincerity we might be able to show a road to the salvation of America’s very soul. It can only be salvaged if human rights and dignity, in full, are extended to black men. Only such real, meaningful actions as those which are sincerely motivated from a deep sense of humanism and moral responsibility can get at the basic causes that produce the racial explosions in America today. Otherwise, the racial explosions are only going to grow worse. Certainly nothing is ever going to be solved by throwing upon me and other so-called black ‘extremists’ and ‘demagogues’ the blame for the racism that is in America.”

~The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Alex Haley and Malcolm X: pp. 383–384.

Sounds like he is talking about organizations. There is a difference between allowing white people to join an exclusive organization and allowing them to come listen to you talk in public. One is the right of a sovereign organization, the other is segregation.

I fully support the right of BLM to exclude whites from their organization. I support their right to kick racists out of their meetings places or to have non public meetings that whites are not allowed to attend. I do not support banning whites from attending public rallies just because they are white, or claiming public property can ever be anything but public.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Its destructiveness is almost irrelevant to me. If its disrespectful, not engaging it in it is often trivial. When American Indians complain about headdress costumes during Halloween it always seems like, well, a dick move to respond with "nu-uh you can't tell me how to treat your heritage" instead of just...I dunno, going as a vampire instead?

The degree to which cultural appropriation is harmful is pretty fucking important when we're discussing whether or not an issue is trivial.

What bothers me about a lot of people on the left, especially students activists, is that they focus on issues which are frankly not the most important. It's completely fine to be upset about cultural appropriation and it's good to explain why cultures shouldn't be commodified. But these issues shouldn't be prioritized over much more serious concerns.

The horrifying rates of Native American sexual victimhood are much more important than white girls wearing headdresses, but you hear about the latter a lot fucking more than you hear about the former.

Vanilla Ice isn't an actually a good example of culture appropriation.

Sorry, why? I thought he was the textbook case.
 

Nudull

Banned
Threads like this usually make me uncomfortable, because it usually ends up with people checking in with their anecdotes and making generalizations about "those people," and there's little dialogue but lots of disagreements over terminology and tone. And here I am, checking in with the same kind of thing. And we have the same discussion every time there's a bait-laden article decrying overzealous sophomores.

I think generalizations in situations like this just lead to more divisive discussion, and we could all use a little more understanding. It doesn't help when bad actors poison discussions like this to further their own agendas.

Threads like these have a tendency to bring out the worst in people wanting so badly to confirm their biases about "them Tumblr kids".
 
You're just taking out of it what you want in order to bolster your point, but while the Aboriginal situation is valid it doesn't invalidate that poster's point you singled out. More to it, what does giving Aboriginals a segregated computer lab on universities actually accomplish? The animosity towards them continues to exist, they are just bubbled away from it.

More importantly, the animosity can actually GROW b/c now the people who participate in it don't have to worry about immediate presence from those they're slandering, so it creates an echo chamber without imminent recourse (i.e threat of presence from Aboriginal students catching wind).

It doesn't address the root of the problem; if anything they should increase security to ensure that any possible conflicts and confrontations that have a potential to spiral out of control do not happen, b/c outside of that university it's not like those Aboriginal students are going to be afforded the same luxury of segregated facilities in the real world. Not unless they want Jim Crow and, well, I'm sure African-Americans from that era would be quick to point out how messed up that was (they didn't even ask for it).

Much the same, the problems minorities face in America aren't going to be resolved by segregating them into "safe space" facilities away from white people. If anything it makes the problems worst. This isn't a very hard conclusion to arrive to and yet some of you seem so eager to continue pushing the idea as if it's valid :/

No, my point is you cant boil down a bunch of complex issues to a couple of lines and say anyone who doesnt agree fits my view of a regressive person. Its the pot calling the kettle black.

This thread isn't about the article I mentioned. My point was there was a lot of good discussion and points made on both sides and you dont get to boil down an opposite view as "lol idiot" while claiming they have a superiority complex.
 

Eidan

Member
It's going to be something of a larger trend than a "small minority of liberals" when considering a person doesn't have to have ALL the traits of the Regressive Left to fall under that definition, and given there's a good few dozen million or so liberals in the country as it is. Even if a person shares one of those traits, that can classify them under the Regressive Left (if not exclusively).

The particular point of myself and others in the thread is that none of those traits are ideal in a society that should be truly progressive, so having just one of them in your value system and structure can cause problems. Ideas influence other ideas, ideas influence people, and so on.

Then I guess our disagreement is over the size of this phenomena. I personally don't think it's a large issue, despite how much you or the Atlantic seem to want me to think it is.
 
The degree to which cultural appropriation is harmful is pretty fucking important when we're discussing whether or not an issue is trivial.

What bothers me about a lot of people on the left, especially students activists, is that they focus on issues which are frankly not the most important. It's completely fine to be upset about cultural appropriation and it's good to explain why cultures shouldn't be commodified. But these issues shouldn't be prioritized over much more serious concerns.

The horrifying rates of Native American sexual victimhood are much more important than white girls wearing headdresses, but you hear about the latter a lot fucking more than you hear about the former.



Sorry, why? I thought he was the textbook case.

It depends. Adam Sandler making a movie about Native American's in that form that he did was pretty fucking bad. The problem with this argument is that it operates on the notion of purity. You're basically telling me that no other issue in the black community matters because of the higher rates of HIV. You are standing on a platform and picking your own grievances, at the expense of others lives, and telling them what they should care about. It feels sanctimonious and self righteous.

Vanilla Ice isn't a great example of culture appropriation to me. To me, a great example of culture appropriation is probably African American music at large. Bringing up Vanilla Ice, but not how jazz, blues, rock, even reggae, were co-opted into mainstream society with no appreciation nor gratitude towards those musical sources while at the same time existing in a segregated America where blacks couldn't share the same water fountain, but you can steal our culture and music is not, in any way, "trivial."

The west has a fascination with what we call, Blue Eyed Soul, that is, soul made by whites. But rarely is this same appreciation shown towards actual black soul. After a life time, it becomes easy to read between the lines. When you devalue another's culture, you're also devaluing their personhood. Remember this the next time you see an Ed Shereen.

Another great example is the treatment of RuPaul's Drag Race and larger pop culture. Spike Lee's Lip Sync cribbed elements right from Drag Race and larger LGBT culture while having the audacity to claim it as an original. Now lip syncing is all over the place while Drag Race has never been nominated for an Emmy despite being the best reality tv show bar none, besides a single nomination in the...makeup category, was it? In an age where people consume inordinate amounts of LGBT porn, but make laws like HB2, this is only a mere leap over culture appropriation. I find the ability to consume another's culture while still victimizing them to be absolutely disgusting and I refuse to label it as trivial just because some moron Freshman college student can't screw their head on straight.
 
Sounds like he is talking about organizations. There is a difference between allowing white people to join an exclusive organization and allowing them to come listen to you talk in public. One is the right of a sovereign organization, the other is segregation.

I fully support the right of BLM to exclude whites from their organization. I support their right to kick racists out of their meetings places or to have non public meetings that whites are not allowed to attend. I do not support banning whites from attending public rallies just because they are white, or claiming public property can ever be anything but public.

Okay, then we agree then. I had no idea of your opinion on the matter and given the Tennessee BLM meeting thread, I'd have to start somewhere. However, to my knowledge, a lot of these things people decry as racist for not allowing white people tend to be organizations. It's impossible to not socialize with white people at all in American society.
 
Then I guess our disagreement is over the size of this phenomena. I personally don't think it's a large issue, despite how much you or the Atlantic seem to want me to think it is.
There certainly seems be more people talking about this demographic and giving them a platform than there are people belonging to it.
 
“I genuinely cared about these causes—still do,"

mhmm

"[but their] fixation with intersectionality, and constant uproar over seemingly trivial and innocuous matters like ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘microaggressions’"

wait, what?

"went against my civil-libertarian sensibilities.”

ohhhhhh

The people in here citing Maher as a counterpoint in here are killing me.
 

Ogodei

Member
Like any radical front they get more wrapped up in their own quest for internal conformity and purity testing than in actually getting shit done.

I disagree with the article author on the matter of disrupting controversial campus speakers. Some of them are just a little wrong and deserve to be torn down in the Q&A session, yes, but some of the people who have been targeted by these things are toxic people who shouldn't* be given a podium

*shouldn't in the sense of private actors telling them that their views are unwelcome, not in actual 1st-amendment violating stuffs.
 
Then I guess our disagreement is over the size of this phenomena. I personally don't think it's a large issue, despite how much you or the Atlantic seem to want me to think it is.

There certainly seems be more people talking about this demographic and giving them a platform than there are people belonging to it.
Give it a little more time. You'll see soon enough and it might just surprise you.
 

Cagey

Banned
Then I guess our disagreement is over the size of this phenomena. I personally don't think it's a large issue, despite how much you or the Atlantic seem to want me to think it is.

There's a perspective problem because articles like this, or anecdotes for/against, pop up here or in similar discussion places with far greater frequency than they would elsewhere. Happens all the time for plenty of different topics.

Like having a Twitter account and stocking your feed with people who complain about slow pizza delivery. You might damn well think there's a nationwide crisis of lackadaisical delivery people and sloth like pizza cooking if that's all you're reading.

This article directly refers to a "small tent within the left" so it'd be nice if we can move the conversation past treating it like an uncharitable exaggeration of liberals in geneeal. These types of activists are real, they're not common, and they're very loud and influential when they do show up.

Seemed accurate.
 
Yeah, I was wondering where it was going to go and then when he said he was Libertarian I bust out laughing. For real.

"I was at a local BLM rally when the library got firebombed by some KKK individuals who were probably just minding their own business, and then - I shit you not - one of the guys running the event called the fire department. I mean, seriously? I was with you for the whole thing, but if you're looking to make a name for yourself, asking to get a fire put out for you isn't the way to go."
 

Brakke

Banned
"I was at a local BLM rally when the library got firebombed by some KKK individuals who were probably just minding their own business, and then - I shit you not - one of the guys running the event called the fire department. I mean, seriously? I was with you for the whole thing, but if you're looking to make a name for yourself, asking to get a fire put out for you isn't the way to go."

You gotta walk a real long way to get from "civil-libertarian sensibilities" to this.
 

Eidan

Member
Give it a little more time. You'll see soon enough and it might just surprise you.

Given a little more time I'm sure that progressives in general will be labeled as the "Regressive Left", yes. Hell, it sounds so good I'd be shocked if I couldn't find a clip of Glenn Beck using it somewhere.
 
I think a bigger problem is that a lot of these people, like say, this High Schooler, fall into these groups without knowing what they're into. So they go along with it, because the premise sounds pretty neat, right? But aren't doing their homework like reading books. I think this is the case with a lot of young adult political/identity circles. You see it with a lot of atheists - the type of atheist who, instead of filling their head with information on philosophy and living one's life, and trying to understand the world, goes for bitching about having to go to church on Sunday on r/atheism. Or you get people like this kid and their friends, who supposedly co-sign these struggles, but probably haven't read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, The Ways of White Folks, or scientific journals. Instead they get their information from their group think tank, like Tumblr, which often apply a more reductionist viewpoint. Similarly, I see a lot of people who bad mouth capitalism without ever having read the Communist Manifesto.

You've got an entire group of people espousing viewpoints they're not even entirely caught up on or knowledgeable about.

My viewpoints are informed by the books I've read, and the life I've lead. I meet far too many people interested in being pro-woman, but can't be assed to read Ain't I A Woman. It feels like people are more interested in searching for an identity and a place to belong than actually standing for the causes and ideas they say they represent and they're not introduced to ideas that help make them think more critically.

This is how I think things like this so-called "Regressive Left" come to being.
 
I disagree with a lot of the points he made according to the article, but

“In another tweet,” he added, “I criticized the usual tactic of campus activists to disrupt and heckle controversial speakers and advised them to raise their strong objections during the question and answer session, which lectures usually reserve long hours precisely to debate opponents. This time, the attacks got a little more personal. I was accused of being a ‘respectable negro,’ ‘uncle tom,’ ‘local coon’ and defending university officials to continue to ‘systemically oppress minorities.’”

Always good to have more, better evidence that racism is going strong in leftist society! I always like to make that point, because I see it so damn often that leftists who make statements like these pull the "I'm not racist" card just as much as someone saying that slavery had its pros and cons.
 

nynt9

Member
Given a little more time I'm sure that progressives in general will be labeled as the "Regressive Left", yes. Hell, it sounds so good I'd be shocked if I couldn't find a clip of Glenn Beck using it somewhere.

See this is the problem here. There are degrees between your position and Glenn Beck. Not everyone who isn't 100% with you is 100% on Glenn Beck's side.
 
On the one hand, there's absolutely a point to be made about a certain crowd shouting down anyone who disagrees with their views and going out of their way to feel that self-righteousness, although I'm always a bit doubtful they're more than a vocal fringe.

On the other hand, the writer's use of a genuine and interesting testimony to extrapolate into nebulous generalities looks lcompletely hokey to me. He sounds a lot like these people who'll preface things with "I'm liberal but..." and will just so happen to regurgitate Fox News talking points. i.e. concern trolling.
 
Like any radical front they get more wrapped up in their own quest for internal conformity and purity testing than in actually getting shit done.

I disagree with the article author on the matter of disrupting controversial campus speakers. Some of them are just a little wrong and deserve to be torn down in the Q&A session, yes, but some of the people who have been targeted by these things are toxic people who shouldn't* be given a podium

*shouldn't in the sense of private actors telling them that their views are unwelcome, not in actual 1st-amendment violating stuffs.
Agreed.

---

People being sanctimonious jerks doesn't mean the things they talk about don't have merit, even if the person yelling at you is terrible at making a solid point or fully understanding what they're saying. What's going on is the same thing going on with any group: talking politics and social causes with anyone usually fucking sucks for a variety of reasons.
 

Eidan

Member
See this is the problem here. There are degrees between your position and Glenn Beck. Not everyone who isn't 100% with you is 100% on Glenn Beck's side.

? I wasn't even implying what you're saying. What I AM saying is that I can easily see conservative talking heads, such as Glenn Beck, painting the left in broad strokes to demonize them. We've seen it before with feminism, "the bleeding heart liberal", "latté sipping liberal", hell, "social justice warrior" was a term popularized by Beck. The "regressive left" would fit comfortably in with past efforts.

I'm not even sure how you could suggest that I was saying someone who doesn't agree with me is on Glenn Beck's side.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
I have to agree. The authoritarian left in the social justice circles would love to have a cultural revolution/great purge type of solution. Just make anyone who doesn't agree disappear. This isn't to say the authoritarian right is innocent, as they too would love their own version of this.

I agree with the fact that we need to work on improving equality, but the energy of these groups are being focused on the wrong solutions. I disagree with the methods most SJ groups go about getting results as they don't work and just push people away.

If we can fix economic inequality we can fix the social stuff, not the other way around. This was linked to in another thread yesterday, and I think it is relevant to this discussion.

http://isj.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-privilege-theory/


This link is absolutely the best thing I have seen posted on the topic of privilege theory and deconstructing and critiquing what has become many modern youth social justice movements.

A lot of posters in this thread would be wise to honestly engage with the piece. It's extremely fair, non-deceptive and well articulated. It shouldn't be a breath of fresh air in today's society but it is.
 

PillarEN

Member
The only advice I have for the kid, because really he is only being disillusioned when at his core his heart is in the right place, is to take a break from areas of the internet where this type of stuff is the only thing practically. When you're away from the internet and just talking to actual people who share what you could call "progressive beliefs" it's a whole lot more level headed and relaxed. It will rejuvenate you. Heck I stay out of the parts of GAF that would tire me out even though I'm in their same corner.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
It depends. Adam Sandler making a movie about Native American's in that form that he did was pretty fucking bad. The problem with this argument is that it operates on the notion of purity. You're basically telling me that no other issue in the black community matters because of the higher rates of HIV. You are standing on a platform and picking your own grievances, at the expense of others lives, and telling them what they should care about. It feels sanctimonious and self righteous.

Vanilla Ice isn't a great example of culture appropriation to me. To me, a great example of culture appropriation is probably African American music at large. Bringing up Vanilla Ice, but not how jazz, blues, rock, even reggae, were co-opted into mainstream society with no appreciation nor gratitude towards those musical sources while at the same time existing in a segregated America where blacks couldn't share the same water fountain, but you can steal our culture and music is not, in any way, "trivial."

The west has a fascination with what we call, Blue Eyed Soul, that is, soul made by whites. But rarely is this same appreciation shown towards actual black soul. After a life time, it becomes easy to read between the lines. When you devalue another's culture, you're also devaluing their personhood. Remember this the next time you see an Ed Shereen.

Another great example is the treatment of RuPaul's Drag Race and larger pop culture. Spike Lee's Lip Sync cribbed elements right from Drag Race and larger LGBT culture while having the audacity to claim it as an original. Now lip syncing is all over the place while Drag Race has never been nominated for an Emmy despite being the best reality tv show bar none, besides a single nomination in the...makeup category, was it? In an age where people consume inordinate amounts of LGBT porn, but make laws like HB2, this is only a mere leap over culture appropriation. I find the ability to consume another's culture while still victimizing them to be absolutely disgusting and I refuse to label it as trivial just because some moron Freshman college student can't screw their head on straight.

I'm not saying cultural appropriation doesn't matter. But don't focus all your efforts on less dangerous problems. Some issues are objectively more serious than others, and it's tragic that the left tends to focus on solving easier issues than harder ones which might cause more harm.

We shouldn't only focus on HIV, but let's actually discuss it! Poor access to HIV treatment and contraceptive is disproportionately killing many black people, but activists tend to care a lot less about this than about white women who wear box braids. Appropriation and microaggressions and poor media representation are problems that need to be solved, but these issues are being treated as the be-all, end-all of oppression. In essentially all matters of social inequity, the modern left is more concerned with surface-level problems rather than structural oppression. It was wrong for white audiences to pass off rock and roll as their own creation, but it was a lot worse for those same audiences to participate in the mass murder, disenfranchisement, and economic oppression of African Americans.

Appropriation isn't unimportant, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as a lot of issues which don't benefit from mass attention and activism. The left is so large and so passionate that we actually have the potential to enact change. Constantly, small issues like a lack of representation in the Oscars or our currency are being addressed due to activism. Why can't we also focus on issues which kill people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom