Watch your back if you ever go to Texas. 
You’re not getting my point.
You guys are pontificating, attempting to tell others what’s appropriate to wear, and what to eat, based on cultural history; meanwhile, you’re writing it on a computer probably manufactured in China by some kid for slave-labor wages, while sitting on a piece of land that is only yours because someone hundreds of years ago stole it from someone else.
The point being, if you want to actually walk the walk instead of just talking the talk with regard to issues of white privilege, and cultural appropriation, you’d start by giving your house and it’s surrounding property over to a Native American family, since, these guilt ridden ideologies, taken to their logical extreme, would mean that by refusing to give up this stolen land - by sitting there and calling it your own - you’re perpetuating the very systems of “hatred” and “privilege” you call out others for.
This is why the Far Left infuriates me. They preach their moral superiority, and insist I’m ignorant because I don’t virtue signal, but at least I’m honest with myself and my viewpoints: Yeah, “white privilege” exists, yeah it sucks, yeah, theft is wrong, but how far can you really take this, logically, honestly? At the end of the day, who really cares if a white person wants to wear a Native flower or if a Chinese person wants to wear some cultural product of Taiwan?
Life is too short to spend it being offended, especially for others’ sake.
No, everyone gets your meaning. It’s just based on faulty logic and faulty premises. You can’t even sustain the argument through your entire post.
You’re the one insisting that the left is required to take the concept to the extreme. You’re the one insisting we have to give up the land appropriated by our ancestors. The actual position is that we owe them reparations. And that we should actually listen to what they tell us.
Not taking something to the extreme doesn’t mean ignoring it altogether, as you are proposing in your final paragraphs. That is faulty logic. You can very well deal with the situation on a practical level.
You ask “who cares?” about the Indian Headdress. The answer is pretty much every Native American/Indian rights organization in existence. That’s why it’s a thing. You’re the one asserting the false premise that this was something white liberals came up with. The concept came because we actually listened to others.
You’re the one reducing actual concepts into “virtue signaling.” You’re the one claiming these are all buzz words with no actual meaning behind them. You’re the one creating the narrative that people make up all these concepts just to try and control others. That is what you have a problem with–people trying to tell you what to do.
But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is how society works. People discover that something is hurting others, so they try to get people to stop doing it. It’s no different than any other thing we don’t do. “Nigger” is gravely offensive to black people, so people try to get you not to say it. And wearing an Indian Headdress is rather offensive to Native Americans, so people try to get others not to wear them.
That’s the problem. You’re just using the same old bad logic that comes up every time this happens. And it always fails. It failed when my grandparents generation tried to redefine “nigger” to mean a horrible person. It failed when South Park tried to make “faggot” mean asshole.
It isn’t the Far Left you are fighting. It’s change. You have this set of ideas of what is and is not offensive, and anyone who gets offended by anything else is just choosing to be offended. Because, otherwise, you’d have to change. You’d have to keep listening to others.
The concept of trying to avoid offending people unnecessarily is an inherently good one. If people go too far, then the people they are trying not to offend can tell them this, and they can back off. But trying to stop it entirely? Creating an ethos where offending people is okay?
That will never work. See the alt-right. They preach this. Until Trump is insulted, then they shout for decorum. Because everyone always has things that offend them. If we want others to respect what offends us, we have to respect what offends others.
And just who decides who pays these reparations? What form do these reparations take - is it a tax? And if so, how is that implemented? Who decides who exactly they’re going to be paid to? And what happens if someone refuses to pay?
You’ll have to expand on what you mean exactly by ‘we should listen to what they tell us.’ Do you mean this in the form of a suggestion - that we should heed suggestions from our fellow humans? Or that we should obey commands? Your words aren’t clear in their intent or meaning in this passage? Also, who is the “us” that’s supposed to be listening, and what are we listening to exactly? Condemnations, demands, commands, or suggestions?
I don’t think it’s as practical as you’d like to think it is. If you’re still speaking of reparations, again, who pays, who gets paid, how is the money taken, etc? There is a difference between ignoring it together, and realizing you cannot undo the past. There is no real reason I should feel bad for something a bunch of white fellows did 200 years ago. I have no Native blood on mine - or my ancestor’s hands. My ancestors weren’t slaveholders. The past is the past; it cannot be changed or altered. Your idealistic vision of reparations runs into the hard wall of reality. People aren’t going to want to pay for crimes they’re not truly guilty of. Every bit of land on this Earth is “stolen.” And given that the history is scant, and records don’t really exist of such things, how can you realistically determine what family, or what tribute, or what group gets what?
Well, I think dictating to someone what he or she is allowed to wear is wrong, personally. I don’t care who it offends. I prefer freedom over caving to others’ sensitivities.
A lot of this nonsense is virtue signalling. It’s also interesting how eager you are to dig into my wallet for your causes - are you so eager, really, to dig into yours? If so, give to a charity. Give a chunk of your own paycheck to every aggrieved group in this country before you demand money from mine. Don’t assuage your own guilt by making me pay reparations for crimes I didn’t commit.
It depends on how it is worn. Does intent no longer matter? And, should it come to the point where such things are put into law, and made criminal offenses? Is that really the direction you desire to take society in? If not, what then? Simply pestering a person or shaming them about until they cease? And what if they don’t? Do you see how such idealism runs into walls? You cannot legislate bigotry out of existence. You can’t tax away blood. Personally, I feel every Union soldier who died in every Indian war paid the price for me. I feel the boys who died at Antietam and other battles paid a good debt for slavery, especially since they were fighting a group whose entire existence was predicated on the existence and continuance of slavery. Is their blood not enough of a sacrifice? Did all the young men who died in the Indian Wars, and the Civil War - did they die in vain?
[quote
It isn’t the Far Left you are fighting. It’s change. You have this set of ideas of what is and is not offensive, and anyone who gets offended by anything else is just choosing to be offended. Because, otherwise, you’d have to change. You’d have to keep listening to others.[/quote]
Ah, I see where this is going. The old, “I’m on the right side of history” crap. I’d have to change? What would I have to change? I don’t spend my free time going out of my way to offend, nor do I burn crosses. I can listen, but refuse to agree - that’s kind of the beauty of this country. This isn’t the 1960s. You’re not winning hearts and minds, nor are you forcing progress. You’re simply creating a backlash. That’s what Trump’s victory was, really.
It isn’t about refusing to listen, either. It’s about being told you’re inherently wicked because people did things at points in the past. It’s about being told because you’re a certain color, that means you can’t express yourself in certain ways or you’re a bad person - but everyone else is free to. When the idea of cultural appropriation is applied to all groups equally - even though it’s a stupid idea anyway - then perhaps I’ll be more inclined to listen.
Of course “rights organizations” care about small issues–like labor unions, they only exist when there is something to be outraged about. And when there isn’t a real issue, they generate one. That’s their business model.
Bingo.
And hey, if anyone wants to have PB&J on Wonderbread, it’s A-OK with me.
No, it isn’t. This entire post is fallacious. It’s also off-topic. If you’d like to start a separate thread, I’d be happy to discuss the topic of labor unions with you.
Is this what you mean by “spying” and “hounding”?
*"Kooks Burritos has closed amid claims they ripped off cooks in Puerto Nuevo, Mexico.
Just one week after Kooks Burritos in Portland, Ore., was featured in a profile for local publication Willamette Week, the pop-up Mexican food cart has closed down amid accusations that they ripped off their recipes.
Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly, the two white women who started Kooks earlier this year, have been accused of stealing their techniques from the “tortilla ladies” of Puerto Nuevo, Mexico — because Connelly told Willamette Week that they gathered their recipes and tortilla-making processes during a holiday road-trip to the Baja California village.
“I picked the brains of every tortilla lady there in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did,” she told the site. "They told us the basic ingredients, and we saw them moving and stretching the dough similar to how pizza makers do before rolling it out with rolling pins.”
In the profile, which first ran May 16, Connelly also claimed that, when the Mexican cooks wouldn’t give up their trade secrets, she and Wilgus “were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look."*
I dunno, maybe that borders on food peeping Tom-ism, but it hardly seems like they were hounding Mexican women into poverty by running a burrito cart in Portland. :dubious:
In another take on the matter, it is apparently OK for white chefs to use recipes of other cultures, as long as they don’t make any money from it.
*Confession: I generally avoid Mexican and Chinese food places where there are non-Mexicans and non-Chinese employed, even as waitstaff or hostesses. Not because of “cultural appropriation”, but because of a non-logical feeling that the food won’t be any good as a result.
I’m getting your point. The problem is your point is nonsense. Not only that, but I’m not one of the folks telling anyone what to wear. So, point your point elsewhere.
Ah, the language of the alt-right.
“Virtue Signalling”, translation: “saying that you’re better than me and I’m offended by it”.
Get used to it.
Who said that they caused their poverty? You’re being skeptical of a straw man.
There were more stories in which they boasted about harassing women who were reluctant to talk with them and literally spying through windows. Maybe they were exaggerating. But that’s their own fault. They came off as jerks at a minimum and exploitative at worst.
As I said, there are white people all over the country selling Mexican food. It’s not a broad cultural problem.
O.K., in your view they were guilty of “hounding impoverished Mexican women”, implying some sort of economic exploitation which seems a bit over the top.
How about the many Hispanic immigrants who’ve opened restaurants and operate food trucks in the U.S.? Are they all using old family recipes, or did some perhaps get their inspiration from alleged original sources who aren’t being compensated for their ideas?
You’re still straw manning. Come up with a sincere restatement of what I actually said and you’ll have a basis for a conversation.
I honestly don’t even know what virtue signalling is. My brain says “Just scroll, it’s young whippersnapper gobbledy gook.”
It does not matter if they literally stole the recipe. You still haven’t gotten it, poor comrade. Unless they are white, it does not matter. Please, go back to the re-education camp. Just accept, white man, that white is always wrong, and color is always right, and, dear comrade, the future will be easier on you.
Or what, comrade? Will you take my family and property from me and send me to a gulag?
Do eet, Chimera, do eet!
Nope, nothing of the kind. We’ll just respect you a lot less.
To paraphrase Roosevelt, I welcome your hatred.
Does creating your own martyrdom over social issues make you happy? :dubious:
What purpose is genuinely served by whining about this sort of thing?