Probably depends on the friend. I’d avoid it. Though given that the person’s a friend, unless they showed clear signs of not wanting to talk about it I’d think it OK to ask them why they avoid honey.
– FWIW, the arguments I’ve seen often have to do with modern beekeeping techniques, including schlepping the bees all around the continent on trucks, which can be hard on the bees. Not all honey’s produced that way, of course. And the friend in my life who I’d feel comfortable asking does eat honey; though I don’t know whether it makes a difference that she knows what I’m using is from local beekeepers.
The vegan friend i discussed it with most eats honey for Rosh Hashanah every year.
I did once tell a vegan that if he was worried about enslaved bees, he should eat locally produced honey and avoid almonds. But i knew i was being a jerk.
You seemed to me to be making a general claim, not one only applying to the specific situation with the Sterling video.
But, OK: there are certainly people who feel they can’t trust anybody who votes for candidates who are campaigning on platforms calling for policies damaging to those people.
Would you criticize a Black person for saying, in 1964, that they couldn’t trust the allyship of a person who said they’d voted for George Wallace?
And life being complicated gets back on topic. Playing the game is almost certainly harmless, in and of itself. But does playing it support Rowling? Does it help her attack trans people? Does it put money in her pocket that she will use to fund politicians who will directly hurt trans people?
Your neighbor says they support Black Lives Matter, they are your ally in this.
Actual behavior - puts up a Thin Blue Line American Flag. (note, the situation we’re discussing is NOT a failure to do something, it is NOT a non-action that does nothing either way, it is a distinctly positive action, the purchase and use of a game that financially supports an anti-trans activist)
Do you feel that it’s inappropriate to criticize your neighbor the next time they tout their BLM cred to you?
I also think the nature of allyship is innately asymmetric, somewhat akin to the “circles of grief” concept. When somebody’s suffering a bereavement or whatever, you’re supposed to “support in” and “complain out”: the direction of the complaining should depend on which party is more closely affected by the tragedy.
For example, you don’t ask your college roommate’s grieving widow to listen to how devastated you are that you and he won’t get to go on your annual camping trip this summer. That’s “complaining in”, which is insensitive. Save that complaint for your own family or friends who didn’t know the deceased (“complaining out”), and in the meantime offer a sympathetic ear to the widow (“supporting in”) to let her express her own more substantial grief.
Similarly, ISTM that declaring yourself an “ally” of transgender-rights causes is basically claiming membership in an outer circle relative to trans people themselves.
Trans person to trans ally:“When somebody who claims to be a trans ally doesn’t see anything wrong with buying or promoting a game that makes money for a notorious and influential transphobe, I feel less trust in their allyship.”complaining out
Trans ally to trans person:“Your opinions about allyship are overbearing and presumptuous and emotionally manipulative, I don’t think me playing this game hurts a fly and because I trust my brain over yours, I’m going to encourage all my friends to get this game, too.”complaining in
Those two types of expressed opinions, whether solicited or unsolicited, are fundamentally different because of the direction of the expression. (Yes, they’re also different in that the second one is more rude and hostile in tone, but even if it were more politely phrased, it would still be problematic because of the complaining-in-vs.-complaining-out aspect.)
Would you criticize a Black person for saying, in 1964, that they couldn’t trust the allyship of a person who said they’d voted for George Wallace?
In the1960’s, black people didn’t go around sorting white people into neat categories called allies and non-allies. The concept of “allyship” that you seem to be using really seems like a 21st century invention to me. In the past, black people assumed some level of racism in all white people regardless of how they voted. Sure, they would assume very racist people were more likely to vote for George Wallace. But I seriously doubt black people in the 60’s expected George Wallace voters to give a flying fig about their thoughts on allyship. So I’m struggling to even imagine an intelligent black person even saying you what you wrote.
Really? Because it seems to me pretty akin to the distinction made by Martin Luther King Jr. that puzzlegal quoted back in post #371:
King’s “moderates” were the white people who were claiming to be allies of his cause but expecting him to take their advice on how he and Black people in general should fight for justice, in order to avoid “alienating” supporters. The unambiguous non-allies of white supremacist groups were less bewildering to deal with.
That seems to me quite analogous to self-proclaimed trans “allies” who prefer the “absence of tension”, in which they can promote a transphobe-supporting video game without worrying that people might consider it inconsistent with their allyship claims, to the “presence of justice” in which trans allies don’t support transphobes.
You introduced an element that is not present in the OP’s situation or my BLM example. Who is touting any kind of cred? I agree if someone is trying to present themselves as a savior figure, then it’s fair to criticize. But if someone is not positioning themselves that way, it’s different.
Believe it or not, I do try limit my judgements about people who put any kind of political slogans (hate speech and obscenities are different). Even if their politics differ than mine, I try not to jump to conclusions if they treat me and my family respectfully.
The idea that I would confront someone who is potentially a cheerleader for black slayings is actually laughable. What the hell am I expecting them to do with my whiny ass except potentially go apeshit on me? I will do what disadvantaged minorities have done from the beginning of time; avoid being around that person as much as possible. Seriously, I pick my battle, especially with my neighbors.
I nearly inserted that they wouldn’t use the word “ally” in that sense in 1964, but I wound up not bothering because I thought that went without saying.
Anybody who’s claiming to be an ally.
If a person’s not claiming any sort of cred, why would they mind being told that they don’t count as an ally?
If that’s a response to the ‘thin blue line’ example – then you appear to be saying specifically that you wouldn’t trust a person who shows signs that they support people who want to do you damage.
Which seems to me to be exactly what Sterling is saying.
His statement underscores my point, not yours. He said moderate whites were guilty of racism despite their self-image as the “good ones” simply because they weren’t hosing kids down in the streets like the “bad ones”.
Notice he didn’t use the word “ally” or “allyship”. These are terms that have recently gained a lot purchase in our speech, but that is not how black people categorized white people back then. You had extreme racists and you had moderate paternalistic ones and then you had white people who were totally cool. Because most of th mainstream was in the middle camp, they proved to be a frustrating block to progress.
I specifically said I refrain from making judgements on people based on the political slogans they post in their yard. That applies to “thin blue line” people.
I was responding to the implication that it’s fair to criticize someone for posting this sign, based on the assumption that they are someone advertising their support for black slayings. If I assumed I was dealing with a person like this, it would be crazy for me—a black woman—to confront them.
My point is that while King didn’t use the words “ally” and “allyship” in this context, ISTM, and still does, that the distinction he’s talking about is quite analogous to the concept of “lukewarm” or unreliable allyship that’s being discussed in this thread.
Sounds to me like a pretty exact parallel with today’s transphobes, and today’s transphobe-appeasers who lecture trans activists on how not to fight for transgender rights because it’ll “alienate” them but still claim to be trans allies, and today’s actual trans allies.
I actually am an artist (saying that makes me feel like I’m saying I am a dope addict or something"), and have never heard the term “consuming art” before. If it’s edible, sure.
If you mean, should they buy it?, there are only 3 reasons why anyone should buy art. 1 - they like it, 2 - it’s more of an investment, and 3 - it will piss off the people that you don’t like. So yes, reason number 3 would work nicely, but only if you don’t like yourself.
I wouldn’t consider them analogous. Hanging a Blue Line flag is a distinct political action. The only reason to purchase and hang a flag is to make a statement. Playing a game is not (well, usually, I’m sure someone can think of an example). An example more along the same lines would be a BLM supporter who bought some shoes at a store that gives 5% of their profits to local police organizations.
In the Blue Line flag example, I’d actually assume there HAD to be some unique rationale for the two very divergent views. Maybe they have a child who is a cop and want to express that they support “good” law enforcement while also agreeing with the points BLM makes. In the shoe store example, I’d assume that they sincerely believe in the points BLM makes but also wrote off the impact of their purchase against BLM as negligible. If we were friends I might tease them about it. If we were just neighbors having a talk and they said “I got these shoes at Smith’s Shoe Store”, I wouldn’t bother to bring it up or try to call them out on it.
ISTM that “cred-touting” has been a part of the discussion among posters, including the OP, who object to the fact that some transgender-rights activists would consider those who promote the game to be less reliable allies on that account.
How about someone who stays at Trump hotels or golfs on his courses? I’d definitely think less of someone who gives him money, enabling his incredibly toxic racism.
