[QUOTE=Guriosity;52285076]I'm starting to believe social justice was pushed as a way to distract folks from actual income inequality. It seems get poor white folks fight against poor black folk, which prevents them gang in up on [b]rich white folk[/b] who owns both political parties. It needs to stop.[/QUOTE]
I mean, you're doing exactly that here though. You're assuming they're white.
Bad people come in all colors. The desire for power and the efforts made to hold onto power are not unique to white people.
[editline]28th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;52285079]Is progressivism not about moving towards egalitarianism both socially and economically? The two aren't mutually exclusive issues.[/QUOTE]
I would argue it's about "progressing" society as a whole, which involves sciences, medicine, economics, politics, and yes, egalitarianism.
[QUOTE=geel9;52285081]I mean, you're doing exactly that here though. You're assuming they're white.
Bad people come in all colors. The desire for power and the efforts made to hold onto power are not unique to white people.
[editline]28th May 2017[/editline]
I would argue it's about "progressing" society as a whole, which involves sciences, medicine, economics, politics, and yes, egalitarianism.[/QUOTE]
I do assume those who own one percent of one percent of all wealth are white.
Rockefeller, Bill Gates, ect.
That not the point. The point social justice seems to me preventing holding those who own most of the wealth from being hold accountable when they cause huge damage (208 recession) or limiting their power over the political process.
Idk, if I had a kid and he wanted to dress up as a native american or something on Halloween I would definitely let him. It seems most of the people who are offended by the cultural appropriation stuff seem to white a lot of the time.
We have bigger problems to deal with imo, I think stuff like global warming/mass hunger/etc is a bit more important than what some middle-class suburban white girl wears to her high school party.
Reminds me of when Ottawa colleges/universities banned all free yoga classes because it was "cultural appropriation
Fucking bullshit. It was just a fitness class that was free to all. It was about improving human lives and they banned it.
[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;52285260]Reminds me of when Ottawa colleges/universities banned all free yoga classes because it was "cultural appropriation
Fucking bullshit. It was just a fitness class that was free to all. It was about improving human lives and they banned it.[/QUOTE]
you're joking right? They banned free yoga classes? How do you even rationalize that.
[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;52285228]Idk, if I had a kid and he wanted to dress up as a native american or something on Halloween I would definitely let him. It seems most of the people who are offended by the cultural appropriation stuff seem to white a lot of the time.
We have bigger problems to deal with imo, I think stuff like global warming/mass hunger/etc is a bit more important than what some middle-class suburban white girl wears to her high school party.[/QUOTE]
This is fallacious, namely in an appeal to worse problems. Those are still important problems that I will never shy away from discussing but just because they exist doesn't mean we cant discuss anything arbitrarily "less" important. Basically the "children are starving in africa!" argument.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52285651]This is fallacious, namely in an appeal to worse problems. Those are still important problems that I will never shy away from discussing but just because they exist doesn't mean we cant discuss anything arbitrarily "less" important. Basically the "children are starving in africa!" argument.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but what grave injustice is being wrought by some pasty fuck wearing a costume
If I went to china, and dressed up as a white stereotype, should that be okay? It's the same bullshit we're talking about here.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52285697]Yeah but what grave injustice is being wrought by some pasty fuck wearing a costume
If I went to china, and dressed up as a white stereotype, should that be okay? It's the same bullshit we're talking about here.[/QUOTE]
The entire point of my post is that I'm not going to be over-dramatic call it a [B]grave injustice[/B], but will still argue against it because I still perceive it to be a problem. So I don't appreciate you mischaracterizing me so.
The problem with it is that it makes the minority groups that these costumes target feel marginalized. I would argue that your analogy, assuming that you are of Asian descent (which I think is the implication), is also something that I as a white person wouldn't appreciate, but I still think it's a poor analogy under a certain condition. I don't think that we've been persecuted, marginalized and discriminated against in China as much as other cultures and races have been here. In any community where a minority group is marginalized as such, I think it's inappropriate to reduce their existence to a costume.
Which brings me to the "only white people care about this!" comment that I see parroted over and over again (with a specific example being in regards to the Redskins controversy).
[QUOTE=sgman91;52283125]The whole idea of arbitrary groups being selected by white liberals that you aren't allowed to satirize seems off to me. You want to dress as an Irishman? Go ahead. A German? Sure. A Jew? No problem. A puritan? More power to ya. A native American? By God! Of course not. That's offensive!
It reminds me of the whole hubbub around the Redskins team name. It was a big deal until that poll came out that showed like 90% of actual native Americans didn't care.[/QUOTE]
This is based on the WaPo poll, right? Because as far as I can tell, [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls"]results and conclusions gathered from this poll have been fairly heavily criticized and there are some conflicting accounts[/url].
[QUOTE]An alternative method to standard opinion polls was used by the Center for Indigenous Peoples Studies at California State University, San Bernardino. A survey was conducted of 400 individuals, with 98 individuals positively identified as Native Americans, finding that 67% agreed with the statement that "Redskins" is offensive and racist. The response from non-natives was almost the opposite, with 68% responding that the name is not offensive.[18][19][/QUOTE]
To me, this directly contradicts the claim that "only" white people care about these controversies, while these results state the opposite. In regards to the most recent WaPo poll, the results are more reliable to me, but there is still the awkward wording of the key question and the issue of self-identification that keep it from being something I'd rely on.
These dipshits just want segregation
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52285761]This is based on the WaPo poll, right? Because as far as I can tell, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls"]results and conclusions gathered from this poll have been fairly heavily criticized and there are some conflicting accounts[/URL].
To me, this directly contradicts the claim that "only" white people care about these controversies, while these results state the opposite. In regards to the most recent WaPo poll, the results are more reliable to me, but there is still the awkward wording of the key question and the issue of self-identification that keep it from being something I'd rely on.[/QUOTE]
We have three polls to go off of: the 2004 Annenberg Poll, the WaPo poll of 504 Native Americans, and a Cal State poll of 98 Native Americans. The first two both gave the same results while the third gave a totally different result. The snippet you quoted is about the Annenberg poll, not the WaPo poll, which was targeted specifically at measuring Native American opinions.
I don't think it's beyond rationality to think that the first two, with similar results, that also have larger sample sizes, carry more weight than the single poll, with a very small sample size.
I still don't see any consistent application of a theory about the issue, or even a coherent theory in the first place.
[editline]28th May 2017[/editline]
Did you read the Cal State poll questions? It's a joke of a poll, no wonder they got different results. The first questions was: "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol," with the respondents saying whether they agree or disagree. The 67% quoted in the Wiki article is citing the results to this question with 67% agreeing with the statement.
Of course it's a "racial" symbol. I'm surprised the result wasn't 100%. I also can't find any methodology.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52286255]We have three polls to go off of: the 2004 Annenberg Poll, the WaPo poll of 504 Native Americans, and a Cal State poll of 98 Native Americans. The first two both gave the same results while the third gave a totally different result. The snippet you quoted is about the Annenberg poll, not the WaPo poll, which was targeted specifically at measuring Native American opinions.
I don't think it's beyond rationality to think that the first two, with similar results, that also have larger sample sizes, carry more weight than the single poll, with a very small sample size.
I still don't see any consistent application of a theory about the issue, or even a coherent theory in the first place.
[editline]28th May 2017[/editline]
Did you read the Cal State poll questions? It's a joke of a poll, no wonder they got different results. The first questions was: "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol," with the respondents saying whether they agree or disagree. The 67% quoted in the Wiki article is citing the results to this question with 67% agreeing with the statement.
Of course it's a "racial" symbol. I'm surprised the result wasn't 100%. I also can't find any methodology.[/QUOTE]
I think you're correct about the Cal State poll, which is something I discovered when probing more into the methodology of the study. Granted, I don't think the other two are perfect either (and my snippet was about the Cal State poll, not either of the other two, and iirc the main question remained constant between the Annenberg and WaPo polls). Like I said, the other two have larger sample sizes because they relied on self-identification (correct me if I'm wrong).
I can't say I honestly know enough about proper polling to draw a conclusion on the quality of the questions asked. If it were me, I would've omitted the "racial" aspect of the question posed by the CalState poll. It's troubling as there are functionally two questions posed there, and we don't know how much of that 67% took into account the "racist" part of the question when responding affirmatively.
HOWEVER
I think something to note, regardless of sample size and supposed integrity of the questions posed, is the disparity between White and Native American responses on the poll. Despite you saying that 100% should have responded with 'yes' as it is obviously a racial symbol, only 32% of white respondents responded affirmatively. This disparity, I think, is the important takeaway and is one that supports my original claim in that "only whites care about the misrepresentation of minorities" (paraphrasing) isn't based in fact.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52285064]Many people use the idea karma inaccuratly and its turned into another word for sin. Two vastly different ideas. What there to learn if you borrow and butcher things as another expression of your cultural lens?[/QUOTE]
Firstly, who are you around that uses karma as a term to mean "sin". everytime I've ever heard it its been used in ways such as "that's karma for you, do bad things have bad things happen" or "do good things and have good things happen".
And secondly, that's what happens when any two cultures intermingle, they both view things from the other culture, including things that have been borrowed (to use the anthropological term) through their own lens and integrate it into their own culture. that's literally how that works. There are countless examples just in terms of language with this.
Blighty for example (not really used outside of the British military, but bear with me). It is theorized to originally come either from a Hindi word (bilaik, meaning 'foreign place or country') or an Arabic word (beladi, meaning 'my own country'). Whatever its original origin, it became a word for British soldiers to mean "England". "A Blighty One" was a wound that sent you back to England, light enough to not kill you, but not too serious or too light where you would be treated in France. Detached from its original meaning (Most likely the Hindi word as it came about the time that the Indian Army was in France) it took on a new meaning for a different culture. That's how languages and cultures work.
The idea that there should be any restriction on who may or may not participate in a culture is stupid and racist. We are all, on this earth, part of the same global culture. Nobody alive had any influence on their ancestors, positive or negative.
I believe it is arguable that the only people appropriating culture are those who would pretend that culture that they had no part in creating or shaping is theirs and theirs alone to hold and celebrate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
