Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.
There can be too much political correctness at times.
It’s less ‘too much pc’ and more ‘purity politics’ imo
There’s a great post on tumblr that really fuckin’ nailed it:
“The trannies should be able to piss in whatever toilet they want and change their bodies however they want. Why is it my business if some chick has a dick or a guy has a pie? I’m not a trannie or a fag so I don’t care, just give 'em the medicine they need.”
“This is an LGBT safe space. Of COURSE I fully support individuals who identify as transgender and their right to self-determination! I just think that transitioning is a very serious choice and should be heavily regulated. And there could be a lot of harm in exposing cis children to such topics, so we should be really careful about when it is appropriate to mention trans issues or have too much trans visibility.”
One of the above statements is Problematic and the other is slightly annoying. If we disagree on which is which then working together for a better future is going to get really fucking difficult.
just a short reminder:
you can post a picture of a gun on facebook, because it is only a harmless picture of a machine that is solely built to kill people. definitely nothing that shouldn’t be shown in public
if you do post a picture if an exposed female nipple, banned, because guess what? that’s against the policy
Related: I believe it’s ok, given certain contexts, to speak broadly and crassly to people who expect that. It’s ultimately ineffective and therefore bad to come off as an pretenscious arrogant know-it-all, correcting everyone’s grammar and word choices and any ignorance they have. I see some students in the labor movement and wonder if they’re capable of expressing their knowledge to typical joe worker, without injecting French, German or Russian, or losing their temper at some unintentionally offensive ignorance. We’re speaking broadly to regular people, don’t alienate them with your academic knowledge.
That doesn’t mean never correct crappy things people say, you can and should, but pick your battles. A climate scientist once told me, being correct isn’t enough.
being correct isn’t enough
A very valuable lesson, and it’s very fitting who said it
I do feel like arguing semantics at almost all times steals some energy from the movement overall
I am very very very left wing, BUT I can get really annoyed with a lot of those “on my side” advocating for the most idealist of all idealism, as if it’s a contest. Feels like a competition of “who’s the bestest and mostest leftist of all”. You scare people away and - not justifying it - but I get why some people get upset with “the left” because of this…
I am very very very left wing, but
Everytime I see someone say this I know without a shadow of a doubt that they’re a centrist liberal.
Lmao this thread is full of “very/hard far left” who then present very cold for a far left takes or are straight out libs.
wrong, I support the green party (multi-party system, you should try it)
So, Social Democrat. I wouldn’t call that “left wing,” in that it isn’t a Socialist platform. It would be “left” in comparison to the status quo, but not enough to be “very very very left wing.”
It would be if you’d compare their program to that of the other left parties here
As I said, left of the status quo, but not on the left.
Lol, thanks for proving my point
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
no, we have another party for that in Belgium (Vooruit). Groen has a leftist program
Groen are center left liberals.
With a program that’s more leftist than the actual left party, yes
Oh? Tell me more about their program to overthrow the liberal state and wrestle control of the means of production away from the owning class.
As a USian, while I think gun violence is a preventable mass tragedy that unfolds daily here I also think that when minorities, indigenous people, women, queer people or really anybody who isn’t a white christian rightwing man talks about wanting to own a gun to protect themselves while living in this country I can’t disagree. If you don’t understand the very real threat of police violence that you can’t resist or stop, and the very real threat of other kinds of violence that police will NOT step in to stop because of who you are, you can’t really argue against owning guns in the US to people that have no other choice than to take this kind of thing seriously.
I think handguns should be made much much much more illegal, since the handgun is actually the tool of state violence and oppression, it is the tool of surprise murder and intimidation. On the other hand if you carry a rifle you have to state your capacity for lethal violence, there is no hiding it or revealing it like a powertrip or gotcha card, which isn’t to downplay the terror and violence that evil rightwing terrorists have wrought upon the US with assault rifles, but at this point I don’t think owning a hunting style rifle or a shotgun as somebody who lives in the US is an unreasonable idea, especially if you have become a convenient political and literal target for the right.
To be clear, the whole stupid idea that owning an ar15 with a 30 roung mag, bumpstock and quick change mags somehow makes you safe to a home defender that breaks into your house at 3am when you pull it out and proceed to shoot 30 rounds erratically in the general direction of something you hear, sending bullets careening through the walls of your neighborhood and more likely killing somebody’s kid sleeping in their bedroom than doing anything to make you safer IS pathetic and spits on actual real gun culture.
Also I want to note that people who roleplay as mil-sim types by spending actual thousands of dollars on pseudo-military equipment to live powertrip fantasies are by and large hilariously pathetic, especially because they are usually completely and utterly blind to (or worse directly supportive of) forms of authoritarian violence (state or otherwise). See lots of loser white dudes showing up in 24k worth of weekend warrior dress up GI Joe gear to defend the incredible threat to civil liberties that society expecting people to wear masks during a pandemic represented… Good job chuds! You saved the day!
The point of concealed carry, in my eyes, is that people don’t know you have it and are more wary to start shit in general. Open carry just means they wait till you’re asleep to lynch you.
Its still horrifying either way.
I think things become much more chaotic and prone to quickly escalating to lethal applications of violence if there is the constant threat that anybody could be concealed carrying and more importantly that if someone felt the need to carry a firearm that they would likely conceal it.
Bringing a large visible rifle into a situation still escalates the threat of violence, but at least it does it in a clear and unambiguous way. There is no excuse to shoot the teenager dressed in basketball shorts and a wifebeater with absolutely no where to hide a rifle because you saw somebody else nearby with a rifle and you think the unarmed teenager might be concealing one. (There really is almost never an excuse to shoot anybody unless they are holding a gun and aiming it at you, and maybe even not then if you are on the one antagonizing them).
The US is a country where police not unregularly shoot innocent people, often unarmed black men or other minorities, and handwave away any responsibility for the needless violence by suggesting there might have been a handgun…
With a hunting rifle or shotgun there is no ambiguity about your intentions in a space or how you will potentially react to lethal threats of violence. There is no conveniently conflating other innocent and unarmed people with the people holding rifles or shotguns and easily getting away with it. On the other hand there is no surprising people by entering a space under false pretexts about your capacity or intentions around violence with a rifle or shotgun, since carrying a large weapon immediately identifies you as someone carrying a large weapon.
My point is, concealed carry is only effectively a right or privilege if society gives you the permission to arbitrarily carry around the means to end many peoples’ lives in your pocket, which is something really only extended willingly and consistently to white, christian conservative men. Carrying around a hunting rifle or a shotgun is a different story.
Look at the way handguns are used in US media, they are treated as status symbols of power and righteosness. Shows and movies constantly rely on the revealing, obtaining and losing of handguns to portray changes in the power of characters (lazy fucking writing but that is another rant…). To US culture the handgun is the ultimate object of empowerment and of personally distributed justice and that says everything you need to know about handguns really.
(also, if you are someone who actually needs to protect yourself with a handgun, you already know who you are, this conversation is irrelevant)
It seems like the atmosphere is changing now but I’ve been saying this for years.
The language of privilege is backwards and counter productive.
what does that mean?
language of privilege
i’ve never heard that phrase
I think he means the mental framework where levels of privilege are assigned to swaths of the population based a facet of their identity: white privilege, female privilege, vegetarian privilege, etc.
Denying privileged doesn’t make it go away. You have to first understand something in order to deconstruct or oppose it.
I’m far left, but I believe that any citizen should be allowed to own any gun.
Eastern front of ww2 made so much more sense to me when I realised the left could also have guns.
For what it’s worth, the far left (internationally) is traditionally pro-gun. I wouldn’t know what positions are about any citizen and any gun, but I wouldn’t be surprised either to hear a socialist advocate for it.
[…] The whole proletariat [i.e. worker class] must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois [i.e. owner class] democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
I dont know who told you leftists don’t like guns, we like guns plenty. It’s liberals who don’t like guns. Us leftists know sometimes you got to throw a bomb into the carriage of a tzar. We leftists knowwhen you go on strike you should bring a gun with you, cuz the Liberals going to try to use the National Guard to murder you.
That’s the far-left stance, generally.
Why any? Why not pistols or rifles with small magazines?
-
Religion can be a force for good. For social cohesion and a feeling of belonging. That it often isn’t speaks more to the samesuch cultural and emotional rot that has affected literally everything than to religion unto itself.
-
It actually makes perfect sense for a country to want to limit or tariff importation of goods. This, if done right, can bring industrialisation into the country. You can’t have a nation that is all middle-managers, despite the First World’s best attempts to become that, it’s just fundamentally unsustainable. And while you can have a nation that just produces/exports raw materials, this is ultimately bad for the people in that nation.
-
The invention of money was a blight on our society. Abolishing it immediately is the first step to proper environmental recovery.
What the systems of getting people their food, supplies would look like, I don’t know, but having corporations hoarding wealth and polluting everything needs to stop.
Money can and should be abolished, but the best way to do so is to work towards a fully publicly owned and centrally planned economy and work towards the use of labor vouchers, which are destroyed upon first use. Eliminate production for profit and replace it with production for use.
A few related thoughts.
- Money, capital, and profit are not the same things.
- Labor vouchers are a form of money.
- Every time you give fiat money back to the government which owns the “money printer,” that money has been in effect destroyed.
- I’m not of the opinion that money should be abolished, not even necessarily “eventually.” Maybe a time will come when it makes sense to, but I don’t have the foresight to speak meaningfully to that.
I think it’s important to understand that “money” as it exists within markets exists in a manner to be exchanged and accumulated. Labor vouchers are a type of "currency,” but as they can’t really be accumulated in the same manner money for exchange can be, may make sense in the far future.
It’s mostly a moot point because we lilely won’t make it to the level of centralization necessary for such a system in our lifetimes though, and our successors can figure out potentially an even better system.
I see the sentiment that money should be abolished here all the time, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a proposed replacement. It’s an interesting idea.
It’s Marxist, so you can go to Marx for more on that, though he didn’t spend much time describing how he thought Communism would function.
If anyone wants do go deep into non-monetary economic systems, I haven’t read/listened-to much of their work but economists and computer scientists like Cockshott have researched planned non-money economies.
A summary: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/paul_cockshott_cyber_communism.html
Idk how we’d get rid of money, but it needs to be done. We’re literally the only species on the planet with this concept and we’re suffering for it.
Yup. We’re producing the goods, we need the goods, why the hell are we doing this with shareholders and money?
Oh right, cause human time is limited and automation isn’t good enough.
Humanity also just can’t coexist peacefully with anything. We ruin everything we touch. Our hubris will be our downfall and I take comfort in the fact that the Earth will heal after we extinct ourselves.
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels, their maintenance and upkeep, etc. etc.) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar possible from us.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want because at a fundamental level a single person or couple can afford the materials it takes to build a home, and after it’s built they can afford to pay a local contractor who lives nearby to make modifications to it.
What they don’t have, is the up front resources to build a 20 story condo building. So instead they can buy a portion of a building that someone else has already built, which leaves them with no say in what is actually built in the first place. Ongoing possible changes and customizations are very limited by the constraints of the building itself, and the maintenance and repairs have to be farmed out to a nother corporation with the specialty knowledge and service staff to keep building systems running 24/7.
Yes, this is more efficient from an operating standpoint, but it’s also more brittle, with less personal ownership, less room for individuality and beautification, and more inherent dependence on larger organizing bodies which always end up being private companies (which usually means people are being exploited).
In addition, when you expand outwards, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities and your elected government, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, but when you build up with condos, you just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively dense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible. In the case of larger apartment buildings, you’ve effectively fully ceded a huge portion of the ‘last mile’ of municipal responsibilities to private corporations.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, and places like Habitat 67 prove that density does not inherently have to be miserable and soulless, however, the act of densifying without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is a huge pressure increasing the corporatization of housing.
Condos and townhouses also spawned HOAs which are yet another layer of an even pettier form of nosey neighbor government you get to live under.
Get a home outside city limits if you can, then it’s just county, state, and federal… Though depending on the city, municipal government isn’t as bad as HOA typically.
In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of “density” that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.
There is a pretty crazy amount of “density” in well bit, low rise structures - though actually I dont personally hate on towers as a concept.
Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.
In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of “density” that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.
Soullessness and rent-seeking is what happens when housing is controlled by for-profit entities, and once you start building housing as system that is bigger, more expensive, or more complex, then one person / small family / support network can manage, then you inherently need to cede control and responsibility to a larger outside entity, which ends up being a corporation.
Even cities like Boston that have a relatively large amount of mid rise housing still have massive housing costs that suck residents dry because it all ends up being landlord controlled.
Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.
I’m no fan of suburbs, but at an inherent level (assuming no crazy HOA), you have far more control of any house that you own over any space in a building that you do. Your average 100 year old suburban home will have far more charm and look far more unique than your average 100 year old apartment unit or condo.
To your last point, I don’t value the external appearance of my home at all. I see the outside when I’m exiting and entering. I see the inside for all the time I spent at home. So being able to change the internal appearance is far more important, and condos, as long as you don’t compromise the other units, generally give the freedom to do what you want. We need more affordable condos. Renting is still a useful housing supply, but the condo market needs to be absolutely flooded.
But property is for some reason considered a retirement plan so causing a housing crash would be political suicide.
deleted by creator
The phrase “we aren’t free until we’re all free” applies to animals as much as humans, and thinking otherwise is straight up bigotry. That so few extend leftist thought to the rest of the living world is a travesty, if you’ve managed to come around to leftist thinking then you’ve absolutely been capable of challenging your pre-conceived biases and this is just another step in that process.
All that said, I’m not one to judge people for not agreeing with this. It took me an exceptionally long time and the right circumstances to finally reassess my reasoning and to realise it was absurdly flawed, hypocritical and informed by propaganda.
That intellectual property, both copyright or patents, doesn’t serve its theoretical purpose and just acts as a legal shield for the monopolies of big corporations, at least in our capitalistic system, and it limits the spread of information
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music. In practice, all musicians need to be on Spotify through one of the few main publishers to make any decent money, and their music will be used for unintended purposes (intended for their contract at least) like AI training
In theory, patents should allow a small company with an idea to sell its progressive product to many big corporations. In practice, one big corporation will either buy the small company or copy the product and have the money to legally support its case against all evidence, lobbying to change laws too. Not to mention that big corporations are the ones that can do enough research to have relevant patents, it’s much harder for universities and SMEs, not to mention big corporations can lobby to reduce public funding to R&D programs in universities and for SMEs.
And, last but not least important, access to content, think of politically relevant movies or book, depends on your income. If you are from a poorer country, chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
I would love to see IP law burned to the ground. A more realistic goal in the meanwhile might be to get compulsory licensing in more areas than just radio.
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music.
You mean like with copyright (IP) laws?
Patents and copyright originated to protect everyone. Charles Dickens complained that his books were copied rampantly. Without them any invention by the little guy would be immediately stolen and ramped up into production at levels the little guy can never match. Why would I work on anything if it can just be stolen with no legal protection? Universities and SMEs constantly issue patents, if they can’t commercialize them themselves they can license them to someone who can.
chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
What? The internet is full of free info.
The real issues are things like:
-
Insanely long copyright periods. Sorry but your grandkids/Disney shouldn’t profit from your work 70+ years later.
-
Patent camping. Either do something with it or lose it.
-
Patent lawsuit factories. The patent office makes money off of fees and is too quick to hand out patents that are overly broad or trivial. You have businesses that just hoard patents with no intention to use them except to sue others.
-
I believe it does function in as it does in theory, but the justification to the public is what you list as “in theory.” Regulations like IP laws are only allowed to pass because they support the profits of those who hold the IP.
And to add to that, scientific papers should be published in open-access journals, instead of Wileys et al. And Universities could run and host these journals, as it is part of their core duty: To preserve and spread knowledge.
Essentially, universities and libraries seem to have a lot in common. Both preserve and spread knowledge.
I like the idea that people should be able to choose their representatives based on how they live, rather than where they live.
You sign up as a “gamer,” or a “farmer” or a “soccer mom.” Whatever you decide for that term. Your representative then wheels and deals and votes for laws that help you.
Any group that had 0.5% of the population willing to sign up would get their voice in the Legislature.
Is this different than proportional representation?
It would be proportional, but instead of your representation being based on your address it’s based on a choice you make.
Think of it this way; you’re a computer programmer who works from home in Hayseed, Iowa. Everyone lese in your town is a farmer or working in farm related business. Your voice will never be heard by the Congressperson.
Under the new system, your address would be irrelevant. You’d be voting for a computer person who knows exactly what you need.
That’s one example. You might want to be part of the ‘teachers’ or ‘gun owners.’
The original idea comes from a novel, “Double Star” by Robert Heinlein. He doesn’t provide an actual constitution, but I do think it’s a nice idea to play around with.
This sounds very much like the German electoral system, except in the German system your address and your preferred “group” are relevant. You get two votes, one is for a local representative, the other is just for a party (so you could freely vote for the “gamer” party if it existed), and both votes contribute seats to government.
TIL. Thank you.
But the reason it’s based on address is because the person you vote for has power over that location. In this system, what would that person have power over?
The idea is briefly mentioned in the book “Double Star” by Robert Heinlein. He doesn’t provide an actual constitution.
Governors and mayors would still run the local area, but the national laws would be passed by a legislature composed of people all elected ‘at large.’
The Congressmember from Texas has no power in his state. He can’t force anyone to do something. They can go to Washington and vote for a law that’s enforced by the police.
This is exactly the political description described in Ann Palmer’s “Terra Ignota.” Government by consent, irrespective of geography. People would join with up to one Hive – some embodied idealist motherly traits like the Cousins, others were strictly about the nationstates of old, like the European Union. It’s four volumes, but is an interesting tale of 25th century political science.
Very cool. Thanks, I’d never heard of that book.
Robert Heinlein worked on some real political campaigns back in the day and it shows in his writings.
Another fun political writer is Ross Thomas. He was a WW2 veteran who went from being a Washington reporter to a crime novelist.
“The Fools In Town Are On Our Side” is about a plan to clean up a small Southern city by making it " so corrupt that even the pimps will vote for reform."
“The Porkchoppers” is about a Nixon era Union election. It’s all about the nuts and bolts of running a dirty campaign.
I believe that the stance against nuclear power (specifically, nuclear fission, as opposed to radioisotope power used by spacecraft) by greens undermines the fight to stop global warming, and that many of the purported issues with nuclear power have been solved or were never really issues in the first place.
For instance: the nuclear waste produced by old-gen reactors can be used by newer generations.
Yeah same. It makes the elections quite annoying because I agree with the local green party in almost every other way. But to me nuclear power is an important way to get reliable green energy. Something that still provides energy when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining. And to me some of the arguments feel way too “feeling based” instead of facts based. That its unsafe or dirty.
Preferably we’d have fusion, but until we manage to get that going I think nuclear fission is a decent alternative. Not forever, but for the coming 50-100 years until we find a better alternative.
I fully agree that nuclear SHOULD have been part of the solution. I disagree that it should now be part of it. We have lost too much knowledge regarding nuclear power to lack of investment. We no longer have time to rebuild that to get it online. Hopefully it can become part of the solution eventually, but 10-20 years is now far too long to wait.
I don’t seem to have a political creed anymore.
I believe in honesty and being honourable.
those are just vague values
I believe in doing good, as opposed to bad
you are so brave
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I suspect that most people, including those who don’t align with any particular political creed, believe in honesty and honour too. So I don’t think you answered the question correctly.
That progressive people should prioritize economic equality ahead of social issues.
They go hand-in-hand, though, and moreover “true economic equality” isn’t possible when humans vary wildly in needs and abilities, hence Marx’s whole attack on the so-called “equalitarians.”
They do not, as evidence by the last two decades of “progressive” politics here in the US.
The US has not had either, truly.
This country would need another 250 years of progressive policies to undo the social and economic damage it has done through racist policy. 20 years of progressive politics can’t undo 2.5 centuries of racial exploitation and division.
Let’s not forget additionally that the USs elected “progressive” politicians for the last two decades fall right of center by world standards as well. If the US would like to actually make progress (hint: it doesn’t, our geriopatrikyriarchy LOVES genocide and exploitation of smaller nations) they’d have to start by not calling the conservative party the left, and not calling the Nazi party the right.
This nation has its head in the political sand so deep it can’t even see its own nose anymore, it will be well collapsed and already rebuilt before it realizes it’s a different nation run by different people.
you can’t learn much about leftism from the USA
I’d argue nearly every single social issue is an economic one. Abortion? Anti-abortion laws are intended to force people to have kids they can’t afford, making them desperate for work to keep their kids fed and clothed. Racial equality? I mean, do I need to say more than the fact that most minorities are statistically poorer? The only one that can be argued is purely social is Trans people, and I simply can’t fathom letting people die for being who they are, or ignoring the blatant attacks on them from the right.
Can’t care about your neigbors when you still have to worry about your own mouth to feed.
Nonsense – people frequently help others even during disasters, wars, and other precarious times.
And you’re not going to miss a days pay to protest or vote when you know neither candidate gives a shit about your health and well-being.
When you look at revolutions the tipping point was always the threat of going hungry and losing your home. That makes everyone desperate.
The left has become so focused on illegal immigrants and identity politics that they have abandoned working class economic issues and rural white voters and it has cost them elections.
Yup.
If the left you’re talking about is the dems, no the fuck they aren’t. Dems aren’t the ones constantly putting forth bills about Trans people. The most any dem has done is post some milqtoast “trans rights” sticker or something.
But I agree I think the dems shouldn’t have justified the fear mongering about immigrants when the right started screeching about it. But that’s also on news orgs justifying it.
Yeah it seems it’s conservatives who are the ones who like to obsess and make it the topic of discussion to make their followers think it is the left’s primary platform of focus.
And then they also fixate on entertainment like games or movies to further play up how everything is woke as though it’s the left politicians making all that.
And it’s because that’s really the only compelling thing they have to play up to their followers who too make it their entire identity of conflict, since their other policies aren’t working class friendly.
since their other policies aren’t working class friendly.
It can not be stressed enough that every single other policy they have is damaging to the working class. I think that’s why they push on transphobia so hard, because it’s the only one that doesn’t.
Are these elections in the room with us right now? Mind naming a single “election” that the left was “lost” over illegal immigrants?
Stop out-woking one another, it’s okay to be right silently in order to bring in fence sitters.
If someone says, “my spirit animal told me late-stage capitalism is evil” welcome them to the club with open arms, focus on how you’re alike and trust them to work out their faux pas over time spent among like-minded peers.
Also cultural appropriation ≠ exploitation, we can stop clutching our collective pearls over these faux pas.
I vote we move to a new term, “cultural plagiarism,” which more clearly relates to e.g. a white person stealing a black musician’s work (as opposed to covering it and giving credit and royalties, which should be fine!)
In the spirit of my post, I’m glad you see a disparity in the term cultural appropriation like I do.
In the spirit of clarifying what I mean, cultural appropriation is using elements of another culture. What you described is exploitative, is very serious, and not what I’m referring to.
But I appreciate your input all the same.
I figured your objection to the term “cultural appropriation” is that people use it to refer to exploitative things as well as what I view as innocent things like a professional dancer who is white dancing to an anime song or something. That’s why I proposed a new term, to help differentiate these things.
Yes! I love it, thank you for that follow up. That’s exactly what I mean.
Cultural appropriation is specifically a method in which suppressing groups deny the cultural heritage of oppressed around. To call it a faux pas is ridiculous and ignorant
Respectfully, I disagree with your definition of cultural appropriation, but i agree it’s wrong to deny others the right to identify with their heritage or cultures.
Cultures borrow from one another, it’s just the nature of having multiple societies in proximity. I would argue (outside of the realm of exploitation) more often than not, cultural appropriation doesn’t come from a malevolent place, nor does it restrict anyone from otherwise enjoying their own heritage and culture. Some 9 year old wearing a Halloween costume of a Disney princess that isn’t their own race isn’t the crime we make it out to be. Worst case scenario it’s a faux pas, best case scenario, that kid took an interest in a group of people they are not familiar with and learned about them.
Also, as another commenter pointed out, the term cultural appropriation is used to cover a wide variety of offenses, so this disagreement could potentially come from that.
Edit: clarity
