If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

The argument will always just be reduced to which races have "power" and which races don't.
So, it's okay for a black person to do whiteface and often do whiteface in the most stereotypically comical way possible (eg White Girls) because black people are powerless and white people have power.
It's the same reasoning people use to say that white people can't experience racism, especially at the hands of black people.

It's an ever expanding tautology, there is no argument against it, no matter how many non-whites disagree with it, they'll be overlooked.

 

[The Butt]

“We’re all the same, from a scientific standpoint. There’s no such thing as race — but there is such a thing as tribalism.”
-Bill Nye

 

[Dak]

If there are some outfits that incite disapproval, then why do we feel personally violated when we're told we shouldn't wear them?

Why do people feel personally violated by the costume wearing of others? Why do people think their disapproval should matter?

 

[Einherjar86]

Equally valid question - but you're mistaken if you think that question is only now being asked, or isn't being asked enough. Quite the contrary, it's been the dominant mentality for centuries. Only now are we seeing a turn in the tides, and it's pissing a lot of people off.

For good reason, too; the argument is tautological, often irrational, and definitely doesn't make sense to a lot of people. But I also think it's pertinent to remember that the exploitation and appropriation of blacks or Native Americans (for example) didn't make sense to the people of those cultures either. The irrationality of postmodern liberalism might be cannibalistic and self-destructive, but that's because it's giving its opponents (as well as its proprietors) a certain taste of their own medicine. And all the "white privilege" people don't like that.

Finally, the implicit reason why most people feel the freedom to wear any costume they want is because they function according to an equally invalid, irrational, and ideological notion of personal freedom and action. That, for some mystical reason, any restriction or regulation of individual behavior is perceived as a slight, as though our experience as an individual justifies our behavior. Perhaps some of this behavior is detrimental to our success, but society will fix that of its own accord.

I don't buy that whole deal. I just think it's a way to avoid thinking about the issue.

 

[Dak]

it's pertinent to remember that the exploitation and appropriation of blacks... didn't make sense to the people of those cultures either.

This is simply historically false.

Finally, the implicit reason why most people feel the freedom to wear any costume they want is because they function according to an equally invalid, irrational, and ideological notion of personal freedom and action. That, for some mystical reason, any restriction or regulation of individual behavior is perceived as a slight, as though our experience as an individual justifies our behavior. Perhaps some of this behavior is detrimental to our success, but society will fix that of its own accord.

I don't buy that whole deal. I just think it's a way to avoid thinking about the issue.

I think SJWism is the extreme end of the "personal liberty ideology" , as the slight taking and perception of restriction or regulation is constantly expanded (or ratcheted). You can't disapprove/ignore, you must approve.

 

[rms]

The argument will always just be reduced to which races have "power" and which races don't.
So, it's okay for a black person to do whiteface and often do whiteface in the most stereotypically comical way possible (eg White Girls) because black people are powerless and white people have power.
It's the same reasoning people use to say that white people can't experience racism, especially at the hands of black people.

It's an ever expanding tautology, there is no argument against it, no matter how many non-whites disagree with it, they'll be overlooked.

That's what I assumed the answer was, but was hoping for something more logical to come out of this.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is simply historically false.

Wow. No, it isn't "historically false," and it isn't simple in any way. Sorry.

I think SJWism is the extreme end of the "personal liberty ideology" , as the slight taking and perception of restriction or regulation is constantly expanded (or ratcheted). You can't disapprove/ignore, you must approve.

There are certainly elements of individualist ideology in SJWism; but in many ways, what Donald Trump advocates is also an extreme of individualist ideology.

That's what I assumed the answer was, but was hoping for something more logical to come out of this.

I don't think you can approach it in a "logical" way; attempting to impose a logic onto it has been the thrust of imperialist thought for centuries now (I'm not calling you "imperialist," I'm simply saying that logic has a history, and it's a very Western history). Logic assumes that you can reduce the situation down to a simple equation, but there's no equation, rhyme or reason, underneath it. All you can do is try and observe everything, as best as you can, and go from there; but the conditions will always shift on you. There isn't anything logical to the argument, it's an argument about historical circumstances and how the West was won, and how people are reacting to that now, in the age of information (or misinformation, both work). You mentioned context above, but this is context - history, culture, this is context. Context doesn't end at "Halloween costume."

Some people would have us ignore narrative altogether because it's misleading and erroneous; but these people overlook the possibility that the impulse to overlook narrative is, quite simply, a part of the narrative itself.

EDIT: not to be harsh, but when most of you (and Dak does this a lot) try and assess the entire situation (i.e. the controversies of identity and identity politics across the board), you take it as though it exists in toto in every given situation - so you can apply logic and calculation to it and come up with numerous ways in which the argument is false or misguided. But there is no situation in which all the conditions are manifest, you have to account for history and other factors. This is the way that "context" works; you can't just reduce every situation to the given conditions of its immediate context, especially when discussing these issues.

My personal opinion.

 

[rms]

But the same people who get upset over the historical context of blackfacing ignore historical contexts in other situations. there's no consistency. My original question was more interested in the group think ideology (Caitlyn is brave and beautiful!) or if I missed some argument.

 

[Einherjar86]

But the same people who get upset over the historical context of blackfacing ignore historical contexts in other situations. there's no consistency.

Well, I don't know about this. I suppose I would need an example.

My original question was more interested in the group think ideology (Caitlyn is brave and beautiful!) or if I missed some argument.

There are more problems with the Caitlin Jenner scenario than I care to go into. There are certainly hypocrisies and inconsistencies, and I'm not going to defend people who stoke the fires for the sake of their bank accounts or political positioning.

Your question raises a dilemma, which is why a Native American wearing blackface is racist or controversial - both minority cultures, both exploited by Euro-American governance and business.

This is how I would explain it: the institution of blackface extends beyond the individual who wears it. When we apply blackface for something like a Halloween costume, we assume that the blackface itself drops out of the equation - it denotes some specific figure or personality, and that is all we intend by it. However, the costume is never merely what the blackface denotes, but includes the blackface itself. What I mean is, you're not just dressing up as a black person: you're dressing up as a white person wearing blackface.

As far as something like White Chicks goes, there is an entirely different history to black people pretending to be white, and it's known as "passing." White people used to apply black facepaint from a position of opportunity: they were already the performers, and by applying paint could play even more roles. Black people passing as white, on the other hand, did so from a position of exclusion; they pretended to be white in order to have the opportunities of white people. Even today, something like White Chicks conjures a very different history than something like Halloween blackface.

The institution of passing has conjured its own confusing controversies, most recently the Rachel Dolezal incident.

 

[rms]

The use of "******(ah)", "bitch", low-sagging pants all are examples of changing the historical identity to either empower or modify for their own sake. But blackface is immune to this, it's always racist and always will be. Why? Who knows, apparently.

I get that one can either see the Apache guy as either "So brainwashed by white culture that he doesn't even realize he's a victim of it", but I also think a dude should be allowed to dress up as Bob Marley for halloween. White or not.

Well that's where the question lies as White Chicks. Were the Wayans harkening back to the times when blacks just wanted to assimilate or are they entering the realm of dressing up as other races for fun? Chappelle did this too, I don't think either are addressing that aspect at all.

 

[Dak]

Wow. No, it isn't "historically false," and it isn't simple in any way. Sorry.

Slavery existed in Africa thousands of years prior to the TAST (although not necessarily WA), and Europeans bought slaves from local slavers - this was a part of the appeal of African slaves, they were very easily acquired. Obviously with easy availability, demand went up, which increased the local practice etc etc. Furthermore, during the same time frame as the early TAST, the Barbary slave trade was going on. The subject isn't simple, but suggesting that the people of Africa were completely ignorant of slavery - even chattel slavery - is yes, simply false. Of course now, I feel I always need to clarify though when making group statements that there are of course, almost always exceptions. That doesn't render the generalization untrue.

There are certainly elements of individualist ideology in SJWism; but in many ways, what Donald Trump advocates is also an extreme of individualist ideology.

Trump is obscenely individualist himself, but his political rhetoric isn't.

But there is no situation in which all the conditions are manifest, you have to account for history and other factors. This is the way that "context" works; you can't just reduce every situation to the given conditions of its immediate context, especially when discussing these issues.

This reminds me of the criticism I read somewhere of "Less Wrong" and religious Bayesians. Of course there's no situation where all conditions are manifest. That's irrelevant.

http://meaningness.com/metablog/how-to-think

Finding a good formulation for a problem is often most of the work of solving it.

A bewildered Bayesian might respond:

You should consider all hypotheses and types of evidence! Omitting some means you might get the wrong answer!

Unfortunately, there are too many. Suppose you want to understand the cause of manic depression. For every grain of sand in the universe, there is the hypothesis that this particular grain of sand is the sole cause of manic depression. Finding evidence to rule out each one individually is impractical.

 

[Einherjar86]

Slavery existed in Africa thousands of years prior to the TAST (although not necessarily WA), and Europeans bought slaves from local slavers - this was a part of the appeal of African slaves, they were very easily acquired. Obviously with easy availability, demand went up, which increased the local practice etc etc. Furthermore, during the same time frame as the early TAST, the Barbary slave trade was going on. The subject isn't simple, but suggesting that the people of Africa were completely ignorant of slavery - even chattel slavery - is yes, simply false. Of course now, I feel I always need to clarify though when making group statements that there are of course, almost always exceptions. That doesn't render the generalization untrue.

So being placed into the hold of a ship and transported across the ocean, to a new land they did not know existed, with animals they had never seen before, to work on plantations that looked nothing like the kingdoms in their home continent, isn't confusing?

I'm sorry, you're fucking wrong on this. Slavery existed in Africa, yes; but even that is an imposition we place on what we observed. You are equating two things that aren't equal. Nice history lesson though.

Also, I wasn't referring to slavery explicitly, but to the entire process of transportation, exploitation, and redistribution that happened to black bodies on the American continent. Simply the system of living and experience they encountered here was enough to make them feel like strangers in a strange land. Combine this with slavery, and it's a very weird new world.

Trump is obscenely individualist himself, but his political rhetoric isn't.

Yes, yes it is. It is very individualist.

And yes, there will always be too many details. Which doesn't mean that we should limit our perspective on various situations, but always be willing to incorporate new information and consider how it might change things. Putting blinders on is just fucking dumb.

 

[Dak]

So being placed into the hold of a ship and transported across the ocean, to a new land they did not know existed, with animals they had never seen before, to work on plantations that looked nothing like the kingdoms in their home continent, isn't confusing?

Also, I wasn't referring to slavery explicitly, but to the entire process of transportation, exploitation, and redistribution that happened to black bodies on the American continent. Simply the system of living and experience they encountered here was enough to make them feel like strangers in a strange land. Combine this with slavery, and it's a very weird new world.

I was referring to slavery as a practice, as an institution, and assumed you were doing the same - especially since it's such a common error.

I'm sorry, you're fucking wrong on this. Slavery existed in Africa, yes; but even that is an imposition we place on what we observed. You are equating two things that aren't equal.

No, I am not. European slavery was of the chattel variety, which did exist in parts of Africa prior to the TAST. I know it's been submitted that West African slavers did not engage in "chattel slavery", but instead in something else because the slavers acquired the slaves through raids rather than purchase. That's absurdly faulty labeling. Chattel slavery is slavery where the slave is a mere commodity to be bought and sold. Upon selling the slaves (which happened prior to the TAST), slavers become complicit in chattel slavery by definition, regardless of how they acquired them.

Yes, yes it is. It is very individualist.
.....

Putting blinders on is just fucking dumb.

"Make America Great". "Build A Wall ("around" America)". "Rebuild America's infrastructure". "Raise tariffs". Etc. These are all collectivist slogans and prescriptions.

Why is it "putting on blinders" if one disagrees over the level of importance of certain "feels"? This sounds like the same sort of issue surrounding the whole "if you don't approve of X, you're a hateful bigot and/or phobic". The blinder is not on the person who sees and judges. It's on the person who does not see and judges.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I am not. European slavery was of the chattel variety, which did exist in parts of Africa prior to the TAST. I know it's been submitted that West African slavers did not engage in "chattel slavery", but instead in something else because the slavers acquired the slaves through raids rather than purchase. That's absurdly faulty labeling. Chattel slavery is slavery where the slave is a mere commodity to be bought and sold. Upon selling the slaves (which happened prior to the TAST), slavers become complicit in chattel slavery by definition, regardless of how they acquired them.

Get off the fucking chattel slavery. You're smart, you know the definition, that's great - but I said exploitation, oppression, redistribution, etc. These terms exceed the institution of slavery, and I'm talking about the entire displacement of Africans, not just their enslavement.

"Make America Great". "Build A Wall ("around" America)". "Rebuild America's infrastructure". "Raise tariffs". Etc. These are all collectivist slogans and prescriptions.

"Make America great" - by doing what? By fostering individual freedoms. That's what Trump's rhetoric is about.

You're so desperate to be an underdog, yet individualism is championed all throughout the political arena.

Why is it "putting on blinders" if one disagrees over the level of importance of certain "feels"? This sounds like the same sort of issue surrounding the whole "if you don't approve of X, you're a hateful bigot and/or phobic". The blinder is not on the person who sees and judges. It's on the person who does not see and judges.

I was referring to dismissing certain information. This information carries significant historical and cultural weight. It's shortsighted to ignore it.

 

[Dak]

"Make America great" - by doing what? By fostering individual freedoms. That's what Trump's rhetoric is about.

You're so desperate to be an underdog, yet individualism is championed all throughout the political arena.

Fostering what individual freedoms? Handouts and public works can be construed as individualistic, but they aren't. Trump's appeal is talking about generating a culture of winning as Americans, not as individuals. "We" "We" "We". Cruz and Paul use individualistic rhetoric, but they aren't very likable or believable. Trump isn't likable, but he's believable to a substantial amount of people.

I was referring to dismissing certain information. This information carries significant historical and cultural weight. It's shortsighted to ignore it.

It's impossible to accurately assign the weight though. Merely attempting a measurement causes it to change (and you already noted this, talking about the shifting of contexts etc). So a determination of value has to be done before measurement, which of course is going generally be self-serving - one way or the other. Can't really get around it.

 

[SentinelSlain]

If people don't like racially insensitive costumes, then fair enough, whatever. People wouldn't like it if you went to certain restaurants and hotels in a hoodie or if you went in certain religious buildings in the wrong attire.

The problem isn't this, it's in a lot of other things that are larger, more subtle underlying matters or are specific matters to do with how SJW's behave. The way that white people are kind of deemed plain people who have no culture is annoying, as is the concept of inherited guilt. The average SJW seems to have the diplomacy skills of a barbarian. This is another issue.

 

[CiG]

As far as something like White Chicks goes, there is an entirely different history to black people pretending to be white, and it's known as "passing." White people used to apply black facepaint from a position of opportunity: they were already the performers, and by applying paint could play even more roles. Black people passing as white, on the other hand, did so from a position of exclusion; they pretended to be white in order to have the opportunities of white people. Even today, something like White Chicks conjures a very different history than something like Halloween blackface.

The argument will always just be reduced to which races have "power" and which races don't.
So, it's okay for a black person to do whiteface and often do whiteface in the most stereotypically comical way possible (eg White Girls) because black people are powerless and white people have power.
It's the same reasoning people use to say that white people can't experience racism, especially at the hands of black people.

It's an ever expanding tautology, there is no argument against it, no matter how many non-whites disagree with it, they'll be overlooked.

I get that one can either see the Apache guy as either "So brainwashed by white culture that he doesn't even realize he's a victim of it", but I also think a dude should be allowed to dress up as Bob Marley for halloween. White or not.

The irony is that Bob Marley experienced racism for being black and also racism from other blacks for being too white.
It's why he said I belong to no race but Jah race.

 

[Einherjar86]

The argument will always just be reduced to which races have "power" and which races don't.
So, it's okay for a black person to do whiteface and often do whiteface in the most stereotypically comical way possible (eg White Girls) because black people are powerless and white people have power.
It's the same reasoning people use to say that white people can't experience racism, especially at the hands of black people.

It's an ever expanding tautology, there is no argument against it, no matter how many non-whites disagree with it, they'll be overlooked.

That's it, just put it in italics - now I agree with you. Magic.

 

[CiG]

Your comment was just an intellectually reworded version of what I just said, lol.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thank you.