Support NeoGAF

[Jonm1010]

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.

Radio lab produces a lot of fascinating stuff and this is one of them.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

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?

I'll agree that in the filter, appropriation comes up a lot more than the horrid conditions on reservations. My problem is with people who say that things like appropriation don't matter - at all - due to the fact that reservations contain violence and abuse. It feels like it's applying a black and white standard on what's worth fighting for, when both issues are pretty important in the grand scheme. When I originally posted, my question was "how is culture appropriation trivial?" because trivial, by definition, gives off the assumption of being unimportant or inconsequential, when, especially in the context of Native of American's, it's anything but.

 

[ApharmdX]

“I genuinely cared about these causes—still do,” he wrote, referencing everything from anti-racism to LGBT rights to reproductive health. “I believed I was doing something noble. At the same time,” he added, “a large part of me was not quite in agreement with some of the views and concepts espoused by social-justice groups. Their pro-censorship tendencies, fixation with intersectionality, and constant uproar over seemingly trivial and innocuous matters like ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘microaggressions’ went against my civil-libertarian sensibilities.”

I get what he's saying but limiting microaggressions and cultural appropriation are important facets of social justice. And what's wrong with intersectionality? Does he mean that it's being used as a tool to discredit the opinions of others?

The faction of the authoritarian left that's anti-liberal in terms of free speech and discourse is pretty creepy and disappointing. Between them and those with the same tactics on the right, the heckler's veto is what reigns supreme these days.

Agreed. I used to think the left was a refuge for free-thinkers, for people who questioned all sorts of power structures. The authoritarian left today resembles the authoritarian right in terms of shouting down opposition and limiting discourse. It's not furthering the cause of social justice, overall, either. You need to change hearts and minds in the mainstream to effect real change; that's the big tent. That doesn't mean dulling your message or compromising your beliefs but it does mean not shutting down discussion.

Also, it's shocking to me the broad range of authoritarian tools that some liberals support or accept. The left has regressed in some ways since my parents' generation, wrong as they were on certain issues. It hurts to see it.

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.

Yeah, I don't see this stuff in my personal sphere. There are good liberals out there who maybe don't toe the line on everything, but they are fundamentally decent and willing to listen, to discuss, and it's possible to reach them with a message of widespread tolerance.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

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.

I take issue with the obsession to tell people especially minorities what is important and what isn't. It's not the Native American's who are unware of sexual victimhood in their community. They "are" the biggest advocates. The issue is people don't care because it doesn't affect them. What you can or cannot wear on Halloween is a universal discussion everyone can have and understands which is why it garners so much more attention.

The issue with all the "minor" issues that people say don't matter is that they go hand in hand with compounding larger issues. Such as no one giving a fuck about the issues of Native Americans/Aboriginal people and the casual vanilla racism they experience in their everyday lives that has been normalized. So much so that people would rather fight for the right to dress like an "indian" for halloween than just say "ya know what fuck it, I'm gonna go as a power ranger".

All this stuff "does" matter and it all ties together in obvious and none obvious ways. It's not for people to say "this shit doesn't matter" while the group being offended has infact been the leading the charge on those issues too. And if you aren't in that group, who are we to go "this shit is irrelevant"?

As a black male I don't particularly enjoy when people say "you talk white". Yes there are tons of other things in my life that I place way above dispelling that specific phrase "but" its still fucking annoying and being told "oh its not a big deal" makes me think "perhaps you dont get all the other implications that makes people think this doesn't matter or is harmless".

 

[Crocodile]

Concepts like micro-aggression, intersectionality, cultural appropriation, etc. are real and important subjects (to say nothing of stuff like full blown racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) to keep in mind and address in our society. The unfortunate truth is that idiocy is not restricted to any particular political ideology. So you are going to get left-leaning activists who are stupid, abuse language, are ignorant, oversensitive to things that should bother no well adjusted individual, etc. It sucks. It sometimes sucks A LOT. However that's a function more of humans being humans than an inherently flawed ideology in most circumstances.

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?

C'mon Son! You know a singular activist can care about more than one thing at one right? I mean this basically the "who cares that you broke your leg, there are children starving in Africa!" line of logic. You also don't get to really choose what is important to a particular individual or how they should prioritize their time.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

I take issue with the obsession to tell people especially minorities what is important and what isn't. It's not the Native American's who are unware of sexual victimhood in their community. They "are" the biggest advocates. The issue is people don't care because it doesn't affect them. What you can or cannot wear on Halloween is a universal discussion everyone can have and understands which is why it garners so much more attention.

The issue with all the "minor" issues that people say don't matter is that they go hand in hand with compounding larger issues. Such as no one giving a fuck about the issues of Native Americans/Aboriginal people and the casual vanilla racism they experience in their everyday lives that has been normalized. So much so that people would rather fight for the right to dress like an "indian" for halloween than just say "ya know what fuck it, I'm gonna go as a power ranger".

All this stuff "does" matter and it all ties together in obvious and none obvious ways. It's not for people to say "this shit doesn't matter" while the group being offended has infact been the leading the charge on those issues too. And if you aren't in that group, who are we to go "this shit is irrelevant"?

As a black male I don't particularly enjoy when people say "you talk white". Yes there are tons of other things in my life that I place way above dispelling that specific phrase "but" its still fucking annoying and being told "oh its not a big deal" makes me think "perhaps you dont get all the other implications that makes people think this doesn't matter or is harmless".

Yeah, I don't tell them what they should advocate because they're Native American. I'm not. I'm pretty positive, in regards to Native American sexual abuse, they're the biggest advocates against that. This is the crux of being an ally: support and knowledge, but not necessarily trying to take over it with your own unique idea on how it should be handled.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I'm super liberal. But my sister is getting really into identity politics. It's still not all that bad here in Scandinavia as what he is describing, but it seems almost anything you say is offensive to her and some of her friends. I mean, the left wing is supposed to be on the side of reality. I really don't enjoy that in some cliques it's becoming as dogmatic as conservatism.

I think it's not as widespread as some of these articles make it seem, though.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

To be honest, liberal doesn't mean much. Why are people using it in this thread like it means anything? I mean, read this shit.

I'm super liberal. But my sister is getting really into identity politics. It's still not all that bad here in Scandinavia as what he is describing, but it seems almost anything you say is offensive to her and some of her friends. I mean, the left wing is supposed to be on the side of reality. I really don't enjoy that in some cliques it's becoming as dogmatic as conservatism.

I think it's not as widespread as some of these articles make it seem, though.

Did you read what you just wrote?

 

[Brakke]

You also don't get to really choose what is important to a particular individual or how they should prioritize their time.

You do, in fact, *need* to choose exactly how people should prioritize their time if you're part of a group trying to decide how to allocate limited people and dollars in pursuit of some goal, like this kid is / was.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I think the discussion about cultural appropriation is especially stupid. I mean, in some extreme cases you can make an ass of yourself by being super insensitive. But I'm a convinced multiculturalist. I think beautiful things are born when different cultures intertwine, and being too sensitive about cultural appropriation will limit our ability to create new things and to understand each other better.

Mixing aspects of different cultures is a highly desirable and inevitable result of multiculturalism. That's my two cents.

Did you read what you just wrote?

Elaborate please

Are you talking about using the term "liberal"? I agree it's a lousy term. Especially considering that here in Europe, the poli sci definition of liberalism is closer to what you guys call libertarianism, and it's a right wing ideology

But this is an English speaking forum so I use the term here in the way it's usually used in English (for some reason)

To be more clear about my ideological position, I'm socially liberal and economically collectivist. Typical Scandinavian in my ideology, really.

 

[nynt9]

? 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.

Oh I agree with that. But I don't think his crowd are the only way who feel that way. People who are legitimately liberal might as well.

Sorry for misreading your comment though.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I think the discussion about cultural appropriation is especially stupid. I mean, in some extreme cases you can make an ass of yourself by being super insensitive. But I'm a convinced multiculturalist. I think beautiful things are born when different cultures intertwine, and being too sensitive about cultural appropriation will limit our ability to create new things and to understand each other better.

Mixing aspects of different cultures is a highly desirable and inevitable result of multiculturalism. That's my two cents.

This sounds idealistically neo-colonist to me. It's never even steven like this, and those people you say are looking stupid? Are probably watching the dominant (or majority) culture take the bits and pieces they like from their culture, and then forcing the rest to be erased through assimilation.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

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.

Just a bit of a nitpick, but spread - the "auctioneering microarguments" style you mentioned - is not a "white" tactic. Anyone can talk fast. In fact, the all black female team from Towson University that won the national championship a couple of years back used it very well, hell, the all black team they were up against used it pretty well too. Ryan Wash's, Radiolab's interviewee, arguments were more focused on the environment surrounding debate, the long hours of research and expensive debate camps required to be successful.

In addition, while I don't follow the debate scene too closely, my guess is that Wash's tactics weren't sustainable because neither of above mentioned teams ignored the theme of the debate, they just approached it from a non-standard perspective (which, considering my username, I applaud.)

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

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.

Let me focus on this for a second.

Are you black?

Because when I was a teenager, HIV was a huge deal in my community. We were taught proper HIV prevention. We talked about HIV prevention in church. I was a part of multiple black focused organizations that talked about safe sex.

To say that HIV isn't talked about, especially among women, within the black community sounds pretty errornous. It makes it sound like you're not black.

It reminds me of racists and dumb black people like Kendrick Lamar who ask things like "How do Black Lives Matter when you people keep killing yourselves?" when most violence is intraracial. Furthermore, Black Americans have been decrying gang violence as far back as the fucking 80's, from shows like Family Matters, to rap records, and workshops on gang prevention. So to see someone, who lives so fucking far on the outside, talk about how it's not an issue and how we "don't talk about" really reminds me of what you're doing right now.

Essentially, you have no idea how our, or the Native American community functions and you're positing your own authority as the right one. You have no idea if Native American organizations aren't making sexual abuse an issue, because you're likely not Native American, aren't a part of Native American organizations, don't spend time with Native American's, and if you do, probably don't know them on a deep enough level for them to talk to you about it.

Everything you're telling me smells of white supremacy.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[TomServo]

Trigger warnings? Fuck I'm getting old.

I thought it was a joke to exaggerate the softness of thr current youth.

Didn't realize it was a real thing.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

This sounds idealistically neo-colonist to me. It's never even steven like this, and those people you say are looking stupid? Are probably watching the dominant (or majority) culture take the bits and pieces they like from their culture, and then forcing the rest to be erased through assimilation.

No, they are all white people in their twenties.

I work in a university, a very multicultural workplace, and from my point of view most of the people my sister associates with are very out of touch in this regard.

And no, I don't want to erase anyone else's culture, wtf? As long as it's not deeply incompatible with humanist ideals (I have no patience for oppression of women, other minorities or LBGT people) everything else is fine by me.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

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.

Holy shit, thanks Cindi for pointing this out.

What the fuck, dude? You honestly don't think there aren't tons and tons of black people working on this? And have been, for decades?

 

[Jonm1010]

Let me focus on this for a second.

Are you black?

Because when I was a teenager, HIV was a huge deal in my community. We were taught proper HIV prevention. We talked about HIV prevention in church.

To say that HIV isn't talked about, especially among women, within the black community sounds pretty errornous. It makes it sound like you're not black.

It reminds me of racists and dumb black people like Kendrick Lamar who ask things like "How do Black Lives Matter when you people keep killing yourselves?" when most violence is intraracial. Furthermore, Black Americans have been decrying gang violence as far back as the fucking 80's, from shows like Family Matters, to rap records, and workshops on gang prevention. So to see someone, who lives so fucking far on the outside, talk about how it's not an issue and how we "don't talk about" really reminds me of what you're doing right now.

Essentially, you have no idea how our, or the Native American community functions and you're positing your own authority as the right one. You have no idea if Native American organizations aren't making sexual abuse an issue, because you're likely not Native American, aren't a part of Native American organizations, don't spend time with Native American's, and if you do, probably don't know them on a deep enough level for them to talk to you about it.

Everything you're telling me smells of white supremacy.

Unless you're not white.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Argue the argument, not the person.

If there is one thing that fucking drives me nuts these days with liberalism is the inability to leave out the ad hominems and personal attacks that are used as a substitute for actual rebuttal.

A person's skin color does not automatically disqualify them from having a well formed and valid grasp of a communities pulse.

If the guy is wrong, and it seems like he is based on other facets of your rebuttal, then stick to that. Why does his skin color and assumed white supremacy even need to be a main crutch of your point?

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Argue the argument, not the person.

If there is one thing that fucking drives me nuts these days with liberalism is the inability to leave out the ad hominems and personal attacks that are used as a substitute for actual rebuttal.

A person's skin color does not automatically disqualify them from having a well formed and valid grasp of a communities pulse.

If the guy is wrong, and it seems like he is based on other facets of your rebuttal, then stick to that. Why does his skin color and assumed white supremacy even need to be a main crutch of your point?

Is this post satire?

 

[ElTorro]

I'm super liberal. But my sister is getting really into identity politics. It's still not all that bad here in Scandinavia as what he is describing, but it seems almost anything you say is offensive to her and some of her friends. I mean, the left wing is supposed to be on the side of reality. I really don't enjoy that in some cliques it's becoming as dogmatic as conservatism.

An issue I have with identity politics is that many of its incarnations seem to presume a homogeneous landscape of opinions and biographies within a labeled group. My intuitions lean towards individualism by default, which is why by default I am skeptical about this particular framework of thought. To take the example of cultural appropriation, the last thread about it that I participated in had four Native American posters speaking their mind. Two agreed with the issue, while the other two disagreed. The only external source of data was a blog post. Assuming that the rest of the posters were not Native American, I have no idea how they can speak for an entire group, especially when they are not part of that group, without having statistical data to back it up, and having evidence for a diversity of opinion instead. And even if, let's say, 75% of a group's members would agree with a certain opinion, that still leaves a significant number of people who disagree.

I am certainly not saying that certain characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, economic background, ...) do not have statistically significant consequences. They certainly have. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise. But many of the implementations of identity politics that I have seen tend to disregard variation and diversity of opinion within such groups completely. That's probably one of the causes for "Uncle Tom" accusations.

I myself could put several minority labels on myself where I diametrically disagree with what is assumed to be the norm within that group; for instance religiosity. Yet a significant number of opinions on issues related to these group treat them like a homogeneous structure, which they are not.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

No, they are all white people in their twenties.

I work in a university, a very multicultural workplace, and from my point of view most of the people my sister associates with are very out of touch in this regard.

And no, I don't want to erase anyone else's culture, wtf, as long as it's not deeply incompatible with humanist ideals (I have no patience for oppression of women, other minorities or LBGT people. Everything else is fine by me.

Well then you are looking at this from a very anecdotal viewpoint, but I've seen what you said apply to various environments. Including ones that are dealing with cultural erasure.

And I'm afraid you also don't see how appropriation and cultural cherry picking can indeed bring oppression with it. Death by a thousand cuts.

It happens quite a bit. It's why white celebrities can wear box braids a-ok, but black female celebrities get shat on by their looks, deliberately try to look more european in a number of ways, and still get shat on.


It's never as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

I think the discussion about cultural appropriation is especially stupid. I mean, in some extreme cases you can make an ass of yourself by being super insensitive. But I'm a convinced multiculturalist. I think beautiful things are born when different cultures intertwine, and being too sensitive about cultural appropriation will limit our ability to create new things and to understand each other better.

Mixing aspects of different cultures is a highly desirable and inevitable result of multiculturalism. That's my two cents.



Elaborate please

Are you talking about using the term "liberal"? I agree it's a lousy term. Especially considering that here in Europe, the poli sci definition of liberalism is closer to what you guys call libertarianism, and it's a right wing ideology

But this is an English speaking forum so I use the term here in the way it's usually used in English (for some reason)

To be more clear about my ideological position, I'm socially liberal and economically collectivist. Typical Scandinavian in my ideology, really.

You argue that your sisters friends are too dogmatic while you say the left wing represents reality. It show a lack of self awareness.

 

[Jonm1010]

Is this post satire?

Absolutely not.

I get the frustration but you are throwing a lot of assumptions at the guy and then deriving personal attacks from them that even if most are true don't actually disqualify his argument. Your personal experience does do that to an extent. At least in terms of showing that it's BS to suggest it NEVER gets talked about. It clearly does at least from your own anecdotal experience which is enough to discredit an absolutist position like his.

I think the posters argument is bullshit because it can be objectively shown to be untrue with countless and numerous avenues of information speaking to the black communities concerns with HIV, I just find very little value in substituting that objective manner of discrediting the argument for assumptions about priveledge and race.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Argue the argument, not the person.

If there is one thing that fucking drives me nuts these days with liberalism is the inability to leave out the ad hominems and personal attacks that are used as a substitute for actual rebuttal.

A person's skin color does not automatically disqualify them from having a well formed and valid grasp of a communities pulse.

If the guy is wrong, and it seems like he is based on other facets of your rebuttal, then stick to that. Why does his skin color and assumed white supremacy even need to be a main crutch of your point?

Assumed white supremacy? He outright said black activists are more concerned about box braids than a virus outright killing black people more than any other demo! That we don't know any better to THAT level.

Fuck yeah it comes off as a level of unawareness that hints to having no access to the communities in question.

What Cindi asked was valid.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Absolutely not.

I get the frustration but you are throwing a lot of assumptions at the guy and then deriving personal attacks from them that even if most are true don't actually disqualify his argument.

I think the posters argument is bullshit because it can be objectively shown to be untrue with countless and numerous avenues of information speaking to the black communities concerns with HIV, I just find very little value in substituting that objective manner of discrediting the argument for assumptions about priveledge and race.

How else am I supposed to frame it? His blackness is entirely pertinent if he's operating on a position that says,"black people concentrate more on box braids being appropriated than actual issues like HIV" which is false given the thousands and thousands of pages of literature throughout the decades. If he were black, he'd know. If he's not black, he's telling people how they should feel about specific issues when he has no idea what their shared life experience is like.

In this case, his race is completely relevant because the very argument *is* about race.

And this is why I don't respect liberals. Always trying to be a moderate while being claiming moral superiority.

 

[Jonm1010]

Assumed white supremacy? He outright said black activists are more concerned about box braids than a virus outright killing black people more than any other demo! That we don't know any better to THAT level.

Fuck yeah it comes off as a level of unawareness that hints to having no access to the communities in question.

What Cindi asked was valid.

I have no problem asking the question. I have a problem deriving near absolutist positions from those assumptions such as his skin color making him almost impossibly incapable of understanding black or other minority communities.

Clearly the guy doesn't but skin color isn't the direct link as to why.

 

[Crocodile]

You do, in fact, *need* to choose exactly how people should prioritize their time if you're part of a group trying to decide how to allocate limited people and dollars in pursuit of some goal, like this kid is / was.

I mean sure, for the sake of holding actual events (fundraisers, sit-ins, etc.) that's important. I was more speaking out against the concept that "people shouldn't address X because Y is more important". Sometimes its not even clear that Y is more important and that the activist is a better judge of that than you. More often, in the circumstances that Y is more important, there is nothing stopping someone from caring about and addressing BOTH issues. Also as has been touched upon already in this thread, when an outsider asks about why Y isn't being addressed instead of X, the truth is often that Y IS already being addressed but the outsider is just ignorant of that fact.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

An issue I have with identity politics is that many of its incarnations seem to presume a homogeneous landscape of opinions and biographies within a labeled group. My intuitions lean towards individualism by default, which is why by default I am skeptical about this particular framework of thought. To take the example of cultural appropriation, the last thread about it that I participated in had four Native American posters speaking their mind. Two agreed with the issue, while the other two disagreed. The only external source of data was a blog post. Assuming that the rest of the posters were not Native American, I have no idea how they can speak for an entire group, especially when they are not part of that group, without having statistical data to back it up, and having evidence for a diversity of opinion instead. And even if, let's say, 75% of a group's members would agree with a certain opinion, that still leaves a significant number of people who disagree.

I am certainly not saying that certain characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, economic background, ...) do not have statistically significant consequences. They certainly have. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise. But many of the implementations of identity politics that I have seen tend to disregard variation and diversity of opinion within such groups completely. That's probably one of the causes for "Uncle Tom" accusations.

I myself could put several minority labels on myself where I diametrically disagree with what is assumed to be the norm within that group; for instance religiosity. Yet a significant number of opinions on issues related to these group treat them like a homogeneous structure, which they are not.

Good post.

Well then you are looking at this from a very anecdotal viewpoint, but I've seen what you said apply to various environments. Including ones that are dealing with cultural erasure.

And I'm afraid you also don't see how appropriation and cultural cherry picking can indeed bring oppression with it. Death by a thousand cuts.

It happens quite a bit. It's why white celebrities can wear box braids a-ok, but black female celebrities get shat on by their looks, deliberately try to look more european in a number of ways, and still get shat on.

It's never as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

Well my view is that anyone should be allowed to look however the fuck they want. That's none of my business. I agree that what you're saying about how people judge the appearance of black people is disgusting. The thread about Michael Jackson the other day was disgusting, but I didn't have the energy to get into it. I don't think it's as much of an issue in Scandinavia as in America though.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Argue for everyone's right to do whatever the fuck they want over limiting the options for who you consider the privileged group. Your approach will never lead to common ground or consensus.

You argue that your sisters friends are too dogmatic while you say the left wing represents reality. It show a lack of self awareness.

Well, that was mostly a joking reference to Stephen Colbert. What I was trying to say was that there is a strong tradition in American liberalism of wonkishness and having the facts on your side, while large parts of American conservatism sticks to dogma. This is especially true for economic policy. I was just saying I don't want the left wing to go down the dogma route (which I'm seeing with magical aterisk policy in the Sanders camp, and with the dogmas in identity politics as described in the OP article).

 

[Jonm1010]

How else am I supposed to frame it? His blackness is entirely pertinent if he's operating on a position that says,"black people concentrate more on box braids being appropriated than actual issues like HIV" which is false given the thousands and thousands of pages of literature throughout the decades. If he were black, he'd know. If he's not black, he's telling people how they should feel about specific issues when he has no idea what their shared life experience is like.

In this case, his race is completely relevant because the very argument *is* about race.

And this is why I don't respect liberals. Always trying to be a moderate while being claiming moral superiority.

You continue to infer a lot of assumptions in your posts, now about me.

The argument of your community experience is a valid one to a person taking an absolutist position. That's a fair, direct critique.

His race would likely afford him better insight generally speaking, but it doesn't practically exclude his ability to understand that community.

You last major paragraph is my main issue and now the notion that race is absolutely pertinent in a discussion about whether a community shows interest in a particular issue over another.

its just dragging privledge theory and ad hominems in to shame him, discredit him through other means, when it has no bearing on whether his argument is actually correct or not. Which it's not, and you actually made a strong case as to why in between the issues I had.

 

[War Peaceman]

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

snip

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.

This is a really interesting post, I will have to check out this podcast, thank you.

Without having listened to it, this seems like an indictment of debating in schools as a competitive process. The idea of winning a debate is perverse - you should present your arguments coherently and persuasively but actually scoring it leads to a focus on the metagame rather than the discussion of ideas.


As to the wider OP, the problems arise from the fact that a lot of the 'social-justice movement's' basic toolset is decent and right. Safe spaces, trigger warnings etc. all have a logical, ethical and moral justification albeit in certain contexts. This makes them difficult to be criticised, because to put it simply, their heart is in the right place: it is about protecting the damaged, providing safety and identity for those who haven't had it in the past. However they can also be abused. Those within these groups need to reflect on the criticism these ideas have received and evaluate how they use these things rather than dismissing it as bigotry.

 

[Kinitari]

You continue to infer a lot of assumptions in your posts, now about me.

The argument of your community experience is a valid one to a person taking an absolutist position. That's a fair, direct critique.

His race would likely afford him better insight generally speaking, but it doesn't practically exclude his ability to understand that community.

You last major paragraph is my main issue and now the notion that race is absolutely pertinent in a discussion about whether a community shows interest in a particular issue over another.

its just dragging privledge theory and ad hominems in to shame him, discredit him through other means, when it has no bearing on whether his argument is actually correct or not. Which it's not, and you actually made a strong case as to why in between the issues I had.

I agree with you jonm, and if it makes it any easier, I'm black, so we can check that off and focus more on the points being made than the person making them.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Too many people in this thread misunderstanding cultural appropriation as multi-culturalism or our melting pot instead of as the disrespectful performance it is.

To be fair, it's easy to do this with the way some people throw the term around about anything. Like all things in politics and academia making its way to standard conversation, you have to do the research yourself instead of making assumptions on what it is based on what some loud person said once.

 

[Infinite]

I agree with you jonm, and if it makes it any easier, I'm black, so we can check that off and focus more on the points being made than the person making them.

It's not like that didn't happen in her posts. This whole meta discussion seems unnecessary as someone who's reading this thread as opposed to actively participating.

 

[War Peaceman]

To be fair, it's easy to do this with the way some people throw the term around about anything. Like all things in politics and academia making its way to standard conversation, you have to do the research yourself instead of making assumptions on what it is based on what some loud person said once.

I think this is a big problem with this crowd - they have an enthusiasm for the academic concepts but lack the intellectual grounding to use the terminology lucidly. It is both admirable and unfortunate.

 

[stump sock]

I think the discussion about cultural appropriation is especially stupid. I mean, in some extreme cases you can make an ass of yourself by being super insensitive. But I'm a convinced multiculturalist. I think beautiful things are born when different cultures intertwine, and being too sensitive about cultural appropriation will limit our ability to create new things and to understand each other better.

Mixing aspects of different cultures is a highly desirable and inevitable result of multiculturalism. That's my two cents.

I watched somebody try to make an argument that learning foreign languages is cultural appropriation. it was definitely something.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Let me focus on this for a second.

Are you black?

Because when I was a teenager, HIV was a huge deal in my community. We were taught proper HIV prevention. We talked about HIV prevention in church. I was a part of multiple black focused organizations that talked about safe sex.

To say that HIV isn't talked about, especially among women, within the black community sounds pretty errornous. It makes it sound like you're not black.

It reminds me of racists and dumb black people like Kendrick Lamar who ask things like "How do Black Lives Matter when you people keep killing yourselves?" when most violence is intraracial. Furthermore, Black Americans have been decrying gang violence as far back as the fucking 80's, from shows like Family Matters, to rap records, and workshops on gang prevention. So to see someone, who lives so fucking far on the outside, talk about how it's not an issue and how we "don't talk about" really reminds me of what you're doing right now.

Essentially, you have no idea how our, or the Native American community functions and you're positing your own authority as the right one. You have no idea if Native American organizations aren't making sexual abuse an issue, because you're likely not Native American, aren't a part of Native American organizations, don't spend time with Native American's, and if you do, probably don't know them on a deep enough level for them to talk to you about it.

Everything you're telling me smells of white supremacy.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I remember Martin had an episode that shifted tone dramatically and put up a message about HIV at the end of the episode. It was a big deal, and one of the ways people outside the black community could see it being raised as an important issue in the time before the Internet.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

You continue to infer a lot of assumptions in your posts, now about me.

The argument of your community experience is a valid one to a person taking an absolutist position. That's a fair, direct critique.

His race would likely afford him better insight generally speaking, but it doesn't practically exclude his ability to understand that community.

You last major paragraph is my main issue and now the notion that race is absolutely pertinent in a discussion about whether a community shows interest in a particular issue over another.

its just dragging privledge theory and ad hominems in to shame him, discredit him through other means, when it has no bearing on whether his argument is actually correct or not. Which it's not, and you actually made a strong case as to why in between the issues I had.

I went after his argument. And the argument does relate to the color of his skin and his life experience. I haven't brought up privilege at all. Nor have I said any ad hominems, besides the liberal remark. Ctrl+f the word privilege and you're the person who brought it up.

I agree with you jonm, and if it makes it any easier, I'm black, so we can check that off and focus more on the points being made than the person making them.

Aren't you a special snowflake?

 

[Kinitari]

It's not like that didn't happen in her posts. This whole meta discussion seems unnecessary as someone who's reading this thread as opposed to actively participating.

The meta discussion is relevant I think. I don't like it when sometimes someone makes a point, but because of their whiteness get criticised, but I make the same point and the entire way people (sometimes the same people) argue with me is different. Shits toxic, and it's predicated on bad ideas about how to go about arguing. Bringing it up at all is bullshit and upsetting, nobody should care what my skin colour, or someone else's skin colour is when arguing against them.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

The meta discussion is relevant I think. I don't like it when sometimes someone makes a point, but because of their whiteness get criticised, but I make the same point and the entire way people (sometimes the same people) argue with me is different. Shits toxic, and it's predicated on bad ideas about how to go about arguing. Bringing it up at all is bullshit and upsetting, nobody should care what my skin colour, or someone else's skin colour is when arguing against them.

Bringing it up at all is bullshit? When the argument is "black people don't talk about the high HIV rate?" the relevance of his skin color is now off limits? So he can come up with ideas on how he thinks entire communities operate and discuss ideas and spread awareness, but it's someone bringing up the fact he's white (is he? That's why I asked) that bothers you?

Miss me with this mess.

 

[Kinitari]

Aren't you a special snowflake?

Damn right, you wanna actually talk about how the fundamental structure of your arguments, with an emphasis on ethnicity somehow being an important prerequisite to taking an argument seriously is the epitome of bullshit?

Bringing it up at all is bullshit? When the argument is "black people don't talk about the high HIV rate?" the relevance of his skin color is now off limits?

Miss me with this mess.

If he's black, what do you say different than if he's white?

 

[Infinite]

The meta discussion is relevant I think. I don't like it when sometimes someone makes a point, but because of their whiteness get criticised, but I make the same point and the entire way people (sometimes the same people) argue with me is different. Shits toxic, and it's predicated on bad ideas about how to go about arguing. Bringing it up at all is bullshit and upsetting, nobody should care what my skin colour, or someone else's skin colour is when arguing against them.

But here it doesn't have a place since the post in question literally addressed why that persons argument was flat out wrong.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Damn right, you wanna actually talk about how the fundamental structure of your arguments, with an emphasis on ethnicity somehow being an important prerequisite to taking an argument seriously is the epitome of bullshit?


If he's black, what do you say different than if he's white?

I didn't say he wasn't black. I actually asked if he was.

Read my post. I got my receipts.

 

[Kinitari]

But here it doesn't have a place since the post in question literally addressed why that persons argument was flat out wrong.

If that's all they said, if that's all they did, do you think I would have a problem? If you say 10 non offensive and agreeable things, but say one thing wildly offensive, I'm not going to let you off the hook for that offensive thing

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You last major paragraph is my main issue and now the notion that race is absolutely pertinent in a discussion about whether a community shows interest in a particular issue over another.

I agree with you here. I guess my issue is where people get their perception about what is and is not advocated for by a community? It just seems insane to me people think HIV isnt discussed in black communities or Native Americans don't discuss the various issues of sexual assualy amd mistreatment of women in their communitty. Those are 2 of the worst examples ever.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

The meta discussion is relevant I think. I don't like it when sometimes someone makes a point, but because of their whiteness get criticised, but I make the same point and the entire way people (sometimes the same people) argue with me is different. Shits toxic, and it's predicated on bad ideas about how to go about arguing. Bringing it up at all is bullshit and upsetting, nobody should care what my skin colour, or someone else's skin colour is when arguing against them.

But she outright said he was wrong. Straight up. His whiteness wasn't criticized, but was speculated as to why he came up with his fuckshit assumption.

Damn right, you wanna actually talk about how the fundamental structure of your arguments, with an emphasis on ethnicity somehow being an important prerequisite to taking an argument seriously is the epitome of bullshit?


If he's black, what do you say different than if he's white?

Lets do it. If he was black, then his life experience would be questioned.

And honestly, it deserves to be if he's black and has such a low regard for other black people.

 

[Sylas]

I went after his argument. And the argument does relate to the color of his skin and his life experience. I haven't brought up privilege at all. Nor have I said any ad hominems, besides the liberal remark. Ctrl+f the word privilege and you're the person who brought it up.

While I fundamentally agree with the argument that people of a certain race know best what factors they have to deal with in society, I disagree with the notion that someone's experience is intrinsically tied to their race. A black person doesn't automatically know about the HIV stuff you mentioned earlier (paraphrasing because it doesn't need reiterating), but their community might have a focus on it.

However, that's not something that's tied into being black. That's something that's relating to the community a person grew up in. While there may exist statistics that show that black communities place a greater emphasis on HIV protection and education (I genuinely don't know. My community taught me absolutely nothing in regards to HIV prevention), making the assumption that he'd know about it because he's black is intellectually dishonest.

Fundamental life experiences--like treatment of a race by authority figures and the way they rally around things more closely tied to the way those authority figures treat them (ie: gang violence) doesn't have much to do with education. A community that isn't focused on HIV protection and education is just that--and race has very little to do with it.

 

[Kinitari]

I didn't say he wasn't black. I actually asked if he was.

Read my post. I got my receipts.

You asked if he was black, to ascertain his blackness - why? What would that have changed in how you spoke to him?

 

[Infinite]

If that's all they said, if that's all they did, do you think I would have a problem? If you say 10 non offensive and agreeable things, but say one thing wildly offensive, I'm not going to let you off the hook for that offensive thing

"Are you black" was offensive in that context? Alright I guess we'll never agree here

 

[Kinitari]

But she outright said he was wrong. Straight up. His whiteness wasn't criticized, but was speculated as to why he came up with his fuckshit assumption.



Lets do it. If he was black, then his life experience would be questioned.

And honestly, it deserves to be if he's black and has such a low regard for other black people.

What if he's black and from Africa? Or black and from a community that never dealt with HIV? Black and super young? Is he not being the right kind of black? Is he not holding the appropriate black ideals?

 

[Lime]

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.

yuuuuuup

Fine if you want to discuss the problems with misguided people who do horrible shit within issues related to identity politics.

But don't use those people to justify the abandonment of the issues related to today's world of extreme inequality, racism, the rise of fascism, extreme pollution, global warming. and consumption of resources, exploitation of labor, and mass surveillance.

If misguided people are enough to have you deny the above challenges, then you were never really in agreement with the goals to begin with. These threads are usually just used by the people against social justice issues to justify why they will continue to not support efforts to dismantle oppression in society and instead maintain the comfortable status quo.

And lol @ civil-libertarian and a supporter of the far-right American Enterprise Institute who go out of their way to sabotage solutions to climate change.