Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

"Racism" Controversy in Utah

Recommended Posts

On 4/30/2018 at 4:23 PM, #1Stunner said:

Demand for injustice is far outstripping supply.   I guess people have had to resort to manufacturing their own injustices to fight against.

Utah girl accused of being racist for wearing a Chinese style dress to Prom---attacked on Social Media:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/990988293939613698

If I were in her shoes, I would sooooooo not give a shiit about what really dumb people on social media have to say. They can just suck it.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the wiki, the qipao was originally a Manchu garment, so ethnic Han wearing it is arguably cultural appropriation (pretty weak argument considering the Manchus ruled China for ~300 years, but hey, this argument is weak AF too). Secondly, its current tight-fitting form only became popular in the '20s or '30s.

So... if that angry twitterer's family moved over before the '30s, is it even "his culture"?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2018 at 11:05 AM, renoskier said:

Okay, I just went back and actually looked at the dress, it's beautiful. The hateful comments are ridiculous, and the young lady has great perspective; "it's a phucking dress!"

IMO, cultural appropriation is bullshit

I could not agree more.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2018 at 12:54 PM, youngrebelfan40 said:

If you’re referencing what I think you are (a post of mine) you misunderstood what I was trying to say. 

 

In an objective sense, all white people have varying degrees of complicity, even most dogged anti-racists. This is kind of self-evident because systems need input to function usually, they aren’t self-sustaining. You can’t really be born into a system (and live in it) that advantages you at every conceivable economic, political, and social level without some input.

Inputs in a system can’t be complicit, they don’t have agency. They are entered in not by themselves, but by something else. But to take even that at face value, if even the most dogged ally anti-racist is still guilty even at birth, I suppose the only way for a white person to not be complicit at all would be suicide in the womb: objectively, literally, and not that it matters regarding this subject; definitionally.

Quote

That doesn’t make the crimes of the system your fault. And it doesn’t mean that all individuals carry the same weight or burden as others, much less of the collective.  It just means that it’s hard to imagine white supremacy functioning completely independently of white individuals’ contributions, even if some of those contributions are not meant to cause harm to others.

So we’re all guilty of something, but it just depends how much.

Quote

Keep in mind, however, that thinking about this amounts to a theoretical excercise. No serious person who wants to end structural inequity starts with the notion that all white people are culpable in their strategy or policy. Talk about ending your mission before it starts. Good luck telling white folks that one. For example, I very gingerly and guardedly have started to explain the concept to intelligent people on here and they immediately get defensive. 

Why the obfuscation? And if it’s just a theoretical exercise, why use the deservedly loaded term “white supremacy”? It’s one hell of a thing to be accused and convicted of at birth. Especially if you believe doing such a thing to a person is wrong.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Inputs in a system can’t be complicit, they don’t have agency. They are entered in not by themselves, but by something else. 

Well, the thing is, many inputs do indeed have agency attached to them. The degree of agency determines the amount of complicity in the crimes of the system as a whole, I suppose. 

 

Quote

But to take even that at face value, if even the most dogged ally anti-racist is still guilty even at birth, I suppose the only way for a white person to not be complicit at all would be suicide in the womb: objectively, literally, and not that it matters regarding this subject; definitionally.

Youre being a bit melodramatic here. Past complicity doesn’t necessarily indicate current complicity. I think the problem here is a matter of tense: let me clarify. All white people generally HAVE BEEN complicit in white supremacy knowingly or unknowingly. Many CONTINUE to be complicit, but not ALL. 

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

So we’re all guilty of something, but it just depends how much.

Sort of. I don’t think the word “guilt” fits very well because generally it implies some kind of intentionality. “We’re all complicit in white supremacy in that we have given inputs necessary for its function, but how complicit you truly are depends on how many inputs you have provided and how intentionally you have provided them” works better. Although it is a bit more complex than your sentence :blink:

Quote

Why the obfuscation? And if it’s just a theoretical exercise, why use the deservedly loaded term “white supremacy”? It’s one hell of a thing to be accused and convicted of at birth. Especially if you believe doing such a thing to a person is wrong.

I’m not obfuscating, just explaining that thinking about white supremacy in this way isn’t necessarily a practical means to affect change, though it may be an objectively (so far as such a thing exists) true description of how the system functions. 

Again, you’re using terms like “convicted” that generally overstate what I’m doing here. All white people aren’t being convicted for the crimes of racial inequity by any serious person discussing these issues. This is simply a recognition that the system is so embedded societally, and so pervasive in how we function and view the world, that our input into it is unavoidable. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Well, the thing is, many inputs do indeed have agency attached to them. The degree of agency determines the amount of complicity in the crimes of the system as a whole, I suppose. 

 

Youre being a bit melodramatic here. Past complicity doesn’t necessarily indicate current complicity. I think the problem here is a matter of tense: let me clarify. All white people generally HAVE BEEN complicit in white supremacy knowingly or unknowingly. Many CONTINUE to be complicit, but not ALL. 

Sort of. I don’t think the word “guilt” fits very well because generally it implies some kind of intentionality. “We’re all complicit in white supremacy in that we have given inputs necessary for its function, but how complicit you truly are depends on how many inputs you have provided and how intentionally you have provided them” works better. Although it is a bit more complex than your sentence :blink:

I’m not obfuscating, just explaining that thinking about white supremacy in this way isn’t necessarily a practical means to affect change, though it may be an objectively (so far as such a thing exists) true description of how the system functions. 

Again, you’re using terms like “convicted” that generally overstate what I’m doing here. All white people aren’t being convicted for the crimes of racial inequity by any serious person discussing these issues. This is simply a recognition that the system is so embedded societally, and so pervasive in how we function and view the world, that our input into it is unavoidable. 

You have been so brainwashed and feminized you are totally unable to think for yourself.  Your arguments have no merits and are complete rubbish.  There is no such thing as "white supremacy", it is just a racist viewpoint used by politicians to divide people so they can create hate and gain votes.  You are a racist and you create hate with your idiotic ideas.  You are no better than any of the 10 clansmen left in this country.  You couldn't create more hate if you were burning crosses and hanging blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jack Bauer said:

I could not agree more.

I figure when it's someone using someone else's culture to A) make money or B) be a tasteless asshole then it's appropriation. Otherwise it's appreciation. 

LOL at "cultural appropriation" of the dominant culture of the last 5000 years though. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cultural appropriation is a thing but this is not it.

Is this really a controversy? I admit I haven't really taken a close look at the articles but from what I have seen it was one guy on twitter making a big deal about and everyone else saying that it isn't cultural appropropriation and over reacting the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tspoke said:

Cultural appropriation is a thing but this is not it.

Is this really a controversy? I admit I haven't really taken a close look at the articles but from what I have seen it was one guy on twitter making a big deal about and everyone else saying that it isn't cultural appropropriation and over reacting the other way.

I think you know the answer to that. The funny thing is that for the outrage culture to truly take root it needs an overreaction to the initial overreaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Well, the thing is, many inputs do indeed have agency attached to them. The degree of agency determines the amount of complicity in the crimes of the system as a whole, I suppose. 

If even the dogged anti-racist is complicit, agency wouldn’t matter. Their existence is enough to be complicit. That’s what was stated. You went on to clarify, so i’ll drop it as much ado.

Quote

 

Youre being a bit melodramatic here. Past complicity doesn’t necessarily indicate current complicity. I think the problem here is a matter of tense: let me clarify. All white people generally HAVE BEEN complicit in white supremacy knowingly or unknowingly. Many CONTINUE to be complicit, but not ALL.

I find this to be a marked departure from what you previously said. I may be wrong. All white people is a lot of people. Does all encompass everyone living up to those born today? Those born 18 years ago? And what are those who are no longer complicit doing? I don’t need an all encompassing answer, an example of two might be illuminating.

Quote

Sort of. I don’t think the word “guilt” fits very well because generally it implies some kind of intentionality. “We’re all complicit in white supremacy in that we have given inputs necessary for its function, but how complicit you truly are depends on how many inputs you have provided and how intentionally you have provided them” works better. Although it is a bit more complex than your sentence :blink:

Complicity by definition implies intentionality. It’s synonymous with aiding and abetting. Guilt may not be the best word for it, but it’s not far off.

Quote

I’m not obfuscating, just explaining that thinking about white supremacy in this way isn’t necessarily a practical means to affect change, though it may be an objectively (so far as such a thing exists) true description of how the system functions. 

Again, you’re using terms like “convicted” that generally overstate what I’m doing here. All white people aren’t being convicted for the crimes of racial inequity by any serious person discussing these issues. This is simply a recognition that the system is so embedded societally, and so pervasive in how we function and view the world, that our input into it is unavoidable. 

If it’s the truth, I don’t see how being deceptive about it makes the purported changes good, even as an abstract good. When do liars about profound ideas ever have the best interests at heart?

In any case, why expand the commonly accepted concept of “white supremacy” by the academics? This seems the real problem with affecting practical change. It conflates an idea with a way more murky and complex idea, without doing anything to lessen the understood radioctive grenade effect of the term. I think it’s intentional, and the intention is pernicious and political. But i’d like to be convinced otherwise.

I used convicted because you used complicit, a legal term ascribing criminal culpability. It may not have been the best term as no one is being held to account by the state. But by drinking the koolaid...I mean taking on this embedded ontology, your making all white persons answerable to the crimes of the collective in at least the mind.

 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...