welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Slightly off-topic: Porn.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
khan wrote:
Yet, ONE GOT RESULTS.


Okay, and I have to take some time out for this one especially. I know in the US, we're particularly prone to subscribing to Great Man Theory when we interpret history and events, but do you really, REALLY think that it was JUST MLK who made things happen? I mean, really?


I am Canadian actually. And while i am well aware others had to contribute, and that if it hadnt been mlk, it would have fallen upon another, but it might have been many years. Nobody since has come close to getting results for civil rights in the usa.

In regards to previous post: if i said they had no power, i should have instead said they have no hard power. Blacks couldnt protect their civil rights, nor could they force the establishment to be fair with them. But sure, they can use softer power. I dont think this is different than what i said. In regards to feminism then, since you hate peta, do the fringedwellers that are violent get results? Like saying 'all sex is rape'? I dont think so, but you might disagee. I think such people give others an excuse to disregard the entire movement, like petas craziefundies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nationality noted. You're still leaning very heavily towards Great Man Theory in your approach. You say another MLK would have stepped in, but what about another Malcolm? What void would the absence of that side of things have left?

People looking for a cause to disregard a movement are going to find one no matter what, because what they are doing is retrenching and rationalizing. While, in a movement's internal strategizing, it can be useful to suss out what likely reactions are going to be and take that into account along with everything else, blanket statements to avoid scaring the privileged are not particularly helpful.

Also, there are always going to be crazies that you have to work around, just like those who actually care for the humane treatment of animals have to contend with the fact that PETA is trying to fly that banner even though their entire purpose is to be in love with themselves, and just happens to have an artificial animal-rights flavor. I loathe the comparison of PETA to the Civil Rights movement, because I don't actually think that PETA actually cares about animals, just attention.

But, you know, even that has its uses if you can get people to sit down at the table with you. You can talk about how and why PETA -isn't- useful, use them as a foil and a point of contrast, and actually get the discussion going.

"Those awful animal rights people are just crazy!"

"Who, PETA? Yeah, I know. The real humane-treatment people are doing this and this and this instead, and they're actually pretty cool. You should listen to what they have to say. It makes PETA look even more insane. And you know, if people weren't actually grinding up male chicks while they're still alive, it'd make it harder for them to get attention."

And there's also the notion that bad publicity is still better than no publicity.

If that sounds a bit mercenary or then-ends-justify, remember that most of this has gone off into extreme case territory, anyway. The original question wasn't even about violent protest, but even just the question of whether to focus on the good to encourage it, or point out the bad--not even to discourage it yet, but to first draw attention to the fact that it exists in the first place and is worthy of concern and action.

Even good-cop MLK wasn't all totally focused on how, really, a certain percent of white society was pretty okay, and even just having a few rights was nice wouldn't it be nice if there were more, and it was just so great that they weren't slaves anymore because it could still be just that much worse.

That would have been ridiculous and fruitless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think i understand your perspective, on the surface at least. I think we are reaching a different conclusion.

Yes, another black person would have had their family destroyed by racism, and result in a more aggressive activist, but i am saying none of them would have the effecf another mlk type would.

I am not saying avoid scaring the privilaged, or dont fight oppresion, i am observing that not all strategies are viable. Mr X brought a big stick to a gun fight. Noble, but he was badlh outgunned. Mlk appealed to reason; he made it harder for the privilaged to ignore the injustice. Thats why his strategy worked. So, im not so much a proponent of mlk the man so much as the archtype. Does this make sense?

So, it sounds like you agree that the peta-crazies are not helping much to further their proported cause of animal welfare, yes? I was trying to connect the fact that bad publicity for an already controversial cause doesnt help it achieve its goal. So i support minimizing the more nuts elements, or at least not supporting them, even if do support their cause. Hence liking thd mlk archtype.

I dont see mlk as more 'good', just more civil and more productive as a result. Yeah, point out uncomfortable truths, make others uncomfortable, but make them feel like they are enemies already, and they wont help you. Point out wrongs, preach by all means. Even make demonstrations, but dont alienate the help you actually need to succeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khan wrote:
So, it sounds like you agree that the peta-crazies are not helping much to further their proported cause of animal welfare, yes? I was trying to connect the fact that bad publicity for an already controversial cause doesnt help it achieve its goal.


I don't think that PETA is helping their "cause" because they're not actually engaged in that cause. They're just playing at it. It has nothing to do with strategy, because there is no strategy, because there is no goal, and because they don't actually care. They're just acting out, and they're the kind of group that would find another thing to act out about if it wasn't animal rights stuff. Animal rights just happens to be their vehicle to be abrasive and "edgy."

I still contend that Malcolm X had more of a positive effect on the movement as a whole than you are giving him credit for. I'm not saying we should take away MLK's day on the calendar, but part of the reason we celebrate him and not X is because white people (me included) feel better about ourselves in relation to MLK. And fine and dandy, it certainly isn't a bad thing to bring things around to a more civil and amicable point. But it doesn't help to write everything else out of the history. You're still not acknowledging any of the ways I brought up that Malcolm X's presence influenced things on both sides of the matter. You can't just take him out of the picture, because he was IN the picture. I never said he was the only part of it, or that the things you stated shouldn't be ultimate goals.

But, again, unless you're an all-powerful genie that can eliminate the need for every single step and struggle along the way, you don't get to tell an oppressed or marginalized group what not to do. You just don't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cactuar



Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, let me say, happy Monday! I had a totally awesome post written Friday when this was all going on, alas it got lost to a firefox crash and I haven't had the time all weekend.

Unfortunately now that three days have passed and the moment is gone, I find that I just don't give as many fucks anymore, so the forthcoming reply isn't nearly as double plus awesome as the first one, but since you were nice enough to reply I feel like I should answer you as well. On the bright side, I finished the high-quality illustrations back when I still cared, so that's sure to be a treat! You may scroll onward with great anticipation~

Thenadathor wrote:

Ok. addressing this, I agree with you that an aversion to political correctness can often be a smokescreen those who want to be carelessly offensive use in order to justify being unnecessarily hurtful. I also think you can have an aversion to political correctness because you don't think not talking about race solves racism. So, if your point is "make sure you are being respectful when you engage in discussions about race" and my point is "its important that people aren't afraid to have discussions about race", then our points do NOT conflict. We can and perhaps should do both.

Yes, see, no we don't totally agree :/ Or, mostly I don't really see where you're coming from here?

This response in particular makes me wonder if you aren't using the word "Political Correctness" to mean something other than it usually does, since I don't see many people using 'Political Correctness' as an excuse to avoid discussion, and the the sort who dislike what they dismissively call Political Correctness (as it's important to note, that the term itself is not generally proactively embraced by anti-racism advocates) are the same sort to try and shut down discussion by talking about how people should stop playing the "race card" or something similar.

So yeah, basically I have no idea what you're talking about and I'll therefore wait for a clarification on that point.

Quote:
I agree with you again that words have distinct and politically significant cultural meaning and we should be sensitive of the context in which our words operate. I looked for the false dichotomy (presenting two exclusive choices when "both", "niether" or other options are available) and I couldn't see it. could you specifically point it out for me?

You know what? you're right! It's very silly of me, but going back to read that, I realize that I mixed up my logical fallacies when I was writing my response. I should have written strawman fallacy instead. I took issue with how (I perceived that) you portrayed the "other side" as holding the extreme view (which, additionally, no one here had advocated) that porn was inherently sexist.

I went on to explain that I agreed it wasn't inherently sexist, but that that didn't matter because it's still plenty sexist/bad in general due to the context in which it exists and from which it cannot be extricated by the power of wishful thinking. (But you already know that part)

So yes, I'm sorry for that mistake.


Quote:
Yeah, I agree with you on this as well. Of course, since the swastika has transitioned from one semiotic meaning to another, perhaps it will do so again. That doesn't mean I condone parading them around under the guise of "taking it back" necessarily (although that has worked with some words...)


Quote:
Again, agreed. Are you equating my "we should not be afraid to talk about race" to doing all of those clearly offensive things? that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Nooooo. That is not what I'm saying. I don't know where you got that from. :/
If you'll look, that paragraph is an extension of the above argument, still about the inherent/non inherent badness of stuff, and is just several more examples of stuff that isn't inherently bad, but which cannot be easily extricated from a pervasive context which makes it bad. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

Quote:
Quote:

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, what exactly do you mean by
Quote:
being afraid to engage in a discussion about race for fear of being dehumanized

??

One thing I really cannot abide is this persistent attitude that being told you did a racist thing is worse than doing a racist thing.



Again, you tell me something I agree with and tell me you are disagreeing with me. so I said "being afraid to engage in a discussion about race for fear of being dehumanized actually reinforces racism by making the topic taboo and difficult to engage with, engagement which leads to healing" and your response was that I think that "being told you did a racist thing is worse than doing a racist thing"? these dont line up! come on man.


Quote:
Quote:
FFS "dehumanized"?! Do you know what is dehumanizing? Suffering from the effects of racism. Do you know what isn't? Having someone tell you that maybe you are doing a racist thing. Hold on... I think I have a picture that perfectly expresses my feelings on this topic.


Okay, so because I think dehumanizing racists is counter-productive that means I think the dehumanization of racists is a bigger deal than being the target of racism?


I notice you seem to have missed the point of my criticism, and also that you didn't answer the question I asked. I want to know what exactly do you mean by saying people fearing being "dehumanized." I take issue with you using that word or words which mean similar things to describe the situation "person gets criticized for racist actions". That word is, as I pointed out, an accurate description of what happen when you are the victim of racism, and it is nowhere near even close to an accurate description of what it is like to be criticized for one's racist actions.

So yes, it 'lines up,' and yes, if you are standing by the statement that people who are being criticized for racist actions are thereby being "dehumanized," then I am standing by the use of that snarky image macro.

Maybe you were just trying to be colorful with words, and I'll believe you if you tell me so, but I've met enough people who say such things in seriousness that I hope you understand why I can't just assume you 'didn't mean it like that'.

**Side note! Because who doesn't love a teachable moment. You will also notice, that I'm not the one essentializing people by referring to them as being racists. Yes, please notice that I never talk about "racists," or "being racist," but only about "doing racist things." ....this is for two reasons.

(1) The idea that there is one type of person who just is racist contributes to the idea that it's just not racism unless you've got guys in white sheets running around beating people. This allows subtle and yet damaging and even deadly forms of racism like medical discrimination to go uncriticized or even reflexively defended on the grounds that the perpetrator "is just such a nice guy" and therefore can't be "a racist," who we all know are utterly horrible people.

(2) As you say it is not necessarily productive to make people feel attacked* and so it is best to speak so that they understand we are not telling them they are horrible people. When we tell them they have done a racist thing it doesn't mean we are "accusing them of being racists" it means they are likely otherwise good people who have done a bad thing, perhaps by accident and all they need to do is remove their foot from their mouth and move on. The assessment can of course, be revised if the individual in question exhibits persistent douchebaggery, but a lot of these incidents/conversations happen on first contact.

*Which, just to clarify is not to say that I feel the conversation needs to be centered around this goal. People who have been harmed have a right to their justified anger without being dismissed for it.


...
OK! Maybe you're not such a prick, after all.
I''m so glad we could have this conversation without the unnecessary petty sniping!

Quote:

Please restore my faith in you and admit your post was largely an argument against someone I don't know who you have been practising against in your mind for a long time.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crayven



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yinello wrote:
no but srsly my right to watch porn trumps any bad shit happening to people in the porn industry

srsly guiz stop oppressing me because im horny

guizzzz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qqVdgaNicX8
Happy watching !


Last edited by crayven on Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cactuar



Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
khan wrote:
So, it sounds like you agree that the peta-crazies are not helping much to further their proported cause of animal welfare, yes? I was trying to connect the fact that bad publicity for an already controversial cause doesnt help it achieve its goal.


I don't think that PETA is helping their "cause" because they're not actually engaged in that cause. They're just playing at it. It has nothing to do with strategy, because there is no strategy, because there is no goal, and because they don't actually care. They're just acting out, and they're the kind of group that would find another thing to act out about if it wasn't animal rights stuff. Animal rights just happens to be their vehicle to be abrasive and "edgy."

I still contend that Malcolm X had more of a positive effect on the movement as a whole than you are giving him credit for. I'm not saying we should take away MLK's day on the calendar, but part of the reason we celebrate him and not X is because white people (me included) feel better about ourselves in relation to MLK. And fine and dandy, it certainly isn't a bad thing to bring things around to a more civil and amicable point. But it doesn't help to write everything else out of the history. You're still not acknowledging any of the ways I brought up that Malcolm X's presence influenced things on both sides of the matter. You can't just take him out of the picture, because he was IN the picture. I never said he was the only part of it, or that the things you stated shouldn't be ultimate goals.

But, again, unless you're an all-powerful genie that can eliminate the need for every single step and struggle along the way, you don't get to tell an oppressed or marginalized group what not to do. You just don't.


Not to mention, that MLK is relentlessly (excuse the wording) whitewashed by the media in the present to give people a palatable, non-threatening hero. He didn't advocate violence, sure, but he was far less conciliatory than he gets portrayed as being, and half the people falling over themselves to wave a banner in support of his ideals would choke if they ever read one of his non-"I have a Dream" speeches. For serious.

Not to mention, many "normal" people, not just what we would think of as virulent racists, hated him too, for stirring up the protests that they perceived as disrupting the peace and security of their lives (nevermind that life had never been peaceful or secure for the people protesting)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group