Well, at least you agree that it’s provocative and stupid. It’s also racist, FYI, but provocative and stupid is still a more perspicacious analysis than I’ve come to expect from you.
Sure it’s stupid. They would probably be equally upset if white artists never painted people of color. If this was a common attitude, I could see why people would be upset.
On the other hand, maybe we should try to understand why she feels this way and what is motivating her actions. We might not end up agreeing with her, but perhaps we’ll better understand the controversy. I’ve read her letter, and see her point. I think she’s wrong, but I don’t think her view is offensive or should be silenced.
I imagine that the same could be said for most “stupid” things SJWs are doing. Underneath it all is a point that is worth trying to understand.
My mistake - I misread it.
I have never disagreed that there are stupid people doing stupid things. I have never disagreed that there are stupid leftists doing stupid things. I have never disagreed that there are stupid leftists doing stupid things that are related to their politics.
I have disagreed that I should give a shit, if they’re people with zero power or influence. I have disagreed that I should pay more attention to them than I do to powerful people doing stupid, politically motivated shit. And I have disagreed that in talking about these people, I should use a term borrowed from a giant-ass group of misogynists who popularized the term in a campaign of terror against feminists doing solid work in game industry criticism.
She probably thinks that way because she either (a) genuinely believes in spurious drivel like ‘cultural appropriation’ and the idea that only whitey can be racist or (b) is willing to peddle those asinine shibboleths to enhance her profile. In other words, she’s either a bigot or a cynic and a fool in either case.
Either way, the notion that a gallery should destroy a painting because images of its subject are protected by some weird creative commons licence that applies only to black people is bizarre, censorious, and racist.
Just because a person doesn’t have power or influence individually doesn’t mean that they can’t have power or influence in a group. After all, it was 535 people with zero power and influence that gave us 8 years of George W. Bush, at least according to the Supreme Court.
If you want to pay more attention to other people, by all means do it. Preferably in a thread far, far from here. But don’t be trying to set my priorities for me. I think these people, in the aggregate, do considerable harm to public debate, and are, at least in part, responsible for the stratospheric rise of the “alt-right”, if for no better reason than their sheer obnoxiousness and the delight with which they revel in their double standards pushes people in the centre further rightward. This thread is designed to highlight examples of their more egregious misbehaviour in order to clarify the threat to public discourse that they pose.
If you think there’s more important things to talk about, fine. No-one’s forcing you to be part of this conversation.
I’m not trying to set your priorities for you. I just think you’re a ridiculous hyperbolic chicken little for setting the priorities the way you do, and it’s idiotic to think that these people do any real harm in the aggregate to public debate. Who really harms the public debate is tremblers like yourself who act like a bunch of teenagers and artists present a real threat to our culture, diverting attention from the very real dangers posed by the vested powers in our culture.
But when stupid people saying stupid things band together, they can become stupid mobs and stupid movements, affecting stupid change.
BTW, we are both terrible, terrible people for using the word “stupid.”
It’s true! Why, art galleries across the world have removed paintings of black people done by white people already, right?
Or, what else. Ooh, I know! Dictionaries are scrubbing the dictionary of words appropriated from other language. Right?
Hmm, not that. Okay, how about this: the United States has elected a president enslaved to the forces of political correctness. Right?
Help me see what you’re talking about.
It’s like the people who said they were going to start using “cuckservative” as a pro-liberal word. No. The word’s use originated with white nationalists.
I’m not talking about a single example but the overall movement of attempts at language police, “unplatforming”, and framing absolutely every damn thing in the form of identity politics. (I prefer the term “illiberal left” to SJW.) And I see the movement as very, very scarily similar in ideologies to the beginning of movements like the Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The far left today is every bit as much of a dystopic nightmare as the far right.
Yes, because anything the far left advocates is close to as bad as ethnic cleansing and world war. :rolleyes:
When Hannah Black becomes president of the US, you can tell me that the far left is as bad as the far right.
Oh shit–the Washington Post published this? I can’t believe it!
No wait. Sorry, a US Senator referenced this on the floor of our nation’s capitol. I still can’t believe it!
No, wait. This is a policy of a multinational corporation, and they’re firing people for violating it. Yup, can’t believe it!
No, wait. Some random blogger whom I’ve never heard of made a dumb argument. I still can’t–actually, hold up–oh shit, it turns out I CAN believe it!
What I’m having trouble believing is that you think I’m going to give a shit about this rando dummy who has no influence at all, when I haven’t cared about any of the other rando dummies who have no influence at all.
What the hell is this, and how did you learn about it? Googling the term gets me nowhere. Is this really something you’ve encountered in the wild, or is this yet more recreational outrage from chicken little conservatives?
Sorry, I misspoke. I meant noplatforming. I mainly see it in my daily reading of one of my favorite blogs. (By someone who is a classical liberal, not one of the little Maos of today.)
What I’m having a hard time believing is that someone as intelligent as you is arguing that pointing out tree after tree after tree after tree after tree doesn’t add up to a forest.
Weird thing about forests. They kinda hafta be together. If you point out a tree in Michigan and a tree in South Africa and a tree in Jamaica and a tree in Chile and a tree in Russia and a tree in Japan, you don’t have a forest. You have six trees. Probably not even the same species.
So to be considered parts of a group or movement, all the members must be in the same geographical location? So you will, of course, agree that there was no gamergate, and no tea party–just for two examples–because those people lived in different locations? Or do you just use such special pleading for groups that you share ideals with?
Oh, for crying out loud. You’re on the internet!