New Testingstan

Thanks for clarifying

I'm not sure how to respond to that yet and I'll think more on it but yeah

Infinity Biscuit wrote:the whole talk of identity politics betraying the cause of proletariat solidarity reminds me of a similar thing within the feminism movement

"solidarity is for white women"

a slogan adopted by a lot of black feminists or womanists who find that the feminist movement has pushed aside things that help them entirely, have overriden and erased their own experiences in a drive to keep the message consistent in stuff that helps, well, white women, primarily. while I don't want to say anything definitive here, I would imagine you'd find similar sentiments in other marginalised women groups such as trans women

so I'm seeing a similar thing here, where straight white men want total solidarity because that's what would benefit them the most. identity politics probably doesn't push forward that one objective as well, but by actually pushing forward things that help so many people, especially marginalised groups that will not get benefits without pushing for it themselves, well, I think it should be pretty clear which of the two is better.

I don't know, I see this as a rhetorical failure, since it essentially solidifies the idea of minority issues as necessarily fractious. After all, solidarity outside that context certainly isn't a bad thing, and it cuts both ways, really- solidarity should mean something similar to how "intersectionality" is used today. Of course, you certainly didn't invent this usage.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:

Jung wrote:If you want to write up a more in-depth rebuttal to my post I'd actually be interested in reading it. Like seriously I'm open to having my mind changed here.

As a white American, myself, I'm seriously not the best person to talk to about this. I would seriously suggest talking to the kind of people who actually are affected since they have the best appreciation for its consequences. That's how it went from something I didn't even know was an issue to something I see as important for me.

Jung wrote:

The problem with "cultural appropriation" as a term (and this also applies to "people of color") is that they're not rigorous terms so much as labels used to put a variety of similar things together. They stop working if they're used as analytical terms in and of themselves (and this produces a lot of of the nonsense that you see from vulgar leftism on Tumblr). So, yes, if we lump together Miley Cyrus twerking, the Rolling Stones, and the use of Native religious concepts like ceremonial tobacco pipes as all the same thing, then we're going to end up with neo-segregationism. But they're only the same thing in that they involve negative uses of culture.

So, to talk about something I know something about, rock-n-roll was originally called "race music" because it developed directly out of wartime and postwar blues and jazz and was explicitly black. A number of white performers and a few black performers adapted the styles of blues to make it more palatable, and this produced early rock-n-roll. Then, later, a number of artists, like the Rolling Stones, started using blues songs directly and adopting a bluesier style. This is why you associate the song "Back Door Man" with the Stones rather than Howlin' Wolf, and also why this post is probably the first time you've heard of Howlin' Wolf.

So not only did rock become understood as a white genre of music, but the blues were carefully whitewashed and the origins papered over. This has contributed to the heavily restricted ways in which black people are allowed to become public musicians, which in turn contributes to the overall underclass status of blacks in the USA. So this shit does have a real effect, and it's something that interacts with poverty in unusual ways that mean that it probably has to be addressed separately.

And on the other side of things, discussions around social justice tend to assume (thanks to the inherent assumption of social media as a private space most people share) that all people involved are well up on jargon or else intruders, so the most that happens is an occasional linking of "How to enjoy problematic things". But really, all that needs to be said is that critical distance also includes distancing enjoyment from understanding- there's nothing wrong with liking the Rolling Stones or the works of Tolkien or Moorcock as long as you understand why they're considered "problematic".

F.J. Prefect, Esq wrote:

Infinity Biscuit wrote:so I'm seeing a similar thing here, where straight white men want total solidarity because that's what would benefit them the most.

I'm pretty sure you're seeing what they believe will benefit the most people the most effectively.

Okay, "people often feel that the best methods are those that tend to downplay or ignore people with obvious differences from them, and this tends to manifest in straight white leftists arguing that class is all, and casual English tends to do poorly when talking about these sorts of unconscious behaviors so they are often framed in a conscious light" We cool, rhetorically?

Jung wrote:

Infinity Biscuit wrote:It was directed at what jester was saying, too. That the Left's fragmentation has slowed down progress. But if we define progress entirely as stuff that the pre-fragmentation Left worked for, then yes that isn't surprising. I just think the definition of what the Left should be working for needs to be expanded, as it is in the process of doing now and as I'm working for.

I see your point and partly agree, but I worry that in the process the left has turned into something less threatening to the truly privileged and less good at defending and promoting the economic interests of the masses.

I worry the result we're setting ourselves up for is a world where poverty is evenly distributed among all races, genders, and sexual orientations; a world where to a large extent the "victory" has consisted of redistributing suffering rather than eliminating it.

Jung wrote:I'd also like to point out that this is one of those areas where different oppressions strengthen each other, specifically the justifications for oppression of poors feed into justifications for oppression of blacks, women etc..

Open racism, sexism etc. isn't very socially acceptable anymore, so racists etc. tend to hide behind claiming that it's OK as long as there's equality of opportunity and that is a solved problem and the remaining inequalities of condition are the result of 'legitimate' reasons for shitting on people, like their bad choices and lack of talent. The Social Darwinist idea that it's OK to shit on people as long as you're doing it on a meritocratic basis is a huge enabling force for racism, sexism etc. in present culture.

On the other hand, the existence of underclasses serves to provide targets to redirect anger, so developing economic equality is only helped by dismantling societal racism and sexism, etc. and without this dismantling there's always a target to displace resentment onto- eg the use of wedge issues like gay rights and abortion to win support for the right among the working class.

And, for that matter, if we believe Gramsci, cultural issues are very important, because developing an authentic culture distinct from the overclass is necessary for a revolutionary change of society. Even then, it's arguable that economic difficulties have been made worse by the destruction or suppression of culture distinct from that of the overclass (for example, the grotesque mutation of the lottery, the extent to which minorities entering positions of authority end up adopting the ideology of the overclass, the creation of artificial consumption cultures for various minority groups, etc.). So I think that cultural issues are valuable and distinct from economic issues.

Of course, all of this blather is really just an awfully milquetoast way to say that all kinds of things and ways are valuable, so whatever.

Also, chatting more generally, but even with a worn DVD, Millennium Actress is still so freaking good. Everybody, find some time to watch one of Satoshi Kon's films soon. One of them's even a Christmas movie, with authentic Christmas miracles!

thejester wrote:It's that political and economic power are intimately linked and so if you want to actually substantially change the position of disadvantaged groups within society you have to work on establishing economic power.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at with my "trying to get the Sumerian kings to say nice things about peasants and women on their stelae" analogy.

In addition to what Baks said up above, one thing to worry about is how (at least in a capitalist system) economic gains and the power that come with them are systematically denied to many of the people who go without now. And things that may seem like symptoms or purely superficial cultural issues have a lot of economic importance deep down. If femininity is seen unconsciously as weaker, less deserving of power and rewards, and inferior in a lot of ways, women of any race will never equal men of their race economically because we're going to be systematically denied access to it. If black people are seen as less employable and reliable, and if they are seen as outright unworthy of holding a job unless they act in a certain very narrow pattern (that white people never have to bother fitting into) then how are they going to get power without that changing?

Things like those require a cultural shift, I think, because while they have economic effects they're cultural issues. I think focusing entirely on economics may actually be treating the symptoms in a lot of cases rather than the other way around as suggested earlier.

I mean, there are points at which conventional identity politics break down, but that's entangled in the ongoing privatization of public space and the destruction of democratic freedoms and fairly well away from what most people would consider important. And even then, it's more that it's difficult to articulate these concerns without making them general- that is, it's nonsensical to argue that haircut restrictions should only be lifted for Afros, cornrows, dreads and other "black" hairstyles, but not for other currently-banned hairstyles. Of course, all sorts of people would argue that it's all right to ban hairstyles to ensure visual conformity, but such people are sadly petty-minded.

Somehow I managed to leave out the critical note that this was in working environments.

Anyways, if you want an example of "clueless allies", just take a look at people freaking out about a gay boxer wearing pride flag boxers in a currently-active SDN thread (in Off-Topic, if you want to know, and boy do I feel sympathy for you IB). It's probably what you'd call a textbook example, though thankfully not to the point of active offensiveness.

Hey Biscuit, from your Tumblr :
Minus the greenery, that looks like one of the neighborhood in my city. => http://goo.gl/maps/ey8GH

that looks really good

i liek it

I could see that kind of futuristic architecture in the inside surface of a an O'Neill cylinder, yes.

Without the greenery it just loses so much though

Yeah. The urban legend has it that the architect committed suicide not long after the construction work was complete, when he saw just what he had unleashed upon this earth

Is the suburb called Mr Crazyville? It should be.

I'm not sure it has a name.

so i did a lot of raking today. like 12 bags of smushed leaves

...and the big tree isn't even done losing them, and the others have barely even begun. oh dear. i gotta make sure i can reuse these bags!

Is The IT Crowd the best British sitcom in recent memory?

It's certainly up there, especially if one ignores the fourth season.

I think that The Thick of It is better.

I remember liking the fourth season.

I haven't looked into The Thick of It, but I think I need to because Iannucci is amazing. <3 In the Loop and Veep.

For me, the fourth season felt like a poor imitation of the first few. There were a few good moments, but nothing like the dinner party or work outing.

But yeah, Thick of It is fucking amazing as a sitcom. It's amazingly well acted.

I personally prefer Black Books, don't know if that counts as recent enough for you
also Peep Show, but I don't know how well that would go over to foreign audiences

Anyone here watch The Inbetweeners? I thought that was brilliant when it was on the air.

Sitting at a LAN, murdering zombies, and my friend has Marylin Manson blaring from his speakers.

Been a while since I had this much fun.

Darksi4190 wrote:Sitting at a LAN, murdering zombies, and my friend has Marylin Manson blaring from his speakers.

Been a while since I had this much fun.

Do you love your guns, god, and zombies?

Oxymoron wrote:Yeah. The urban legend has it that the architect committed suicide not long after the construction work was complete, when he saw just what he had unleashed upon this earth

Look if the Prussians invade you'll be glad you have a ready made star fort

ADR or anyone else: can you explain why horizontal tearing during videos completely disappears when I enable Aero on Windows 7? My GT220 drivers are up to date yet it still persists. I've noticed this for years, but since I edit photos, Aero makes things uncomfortable and has thus been disabled.

idk but i think aero is tied to using the driver's/hardware's acceleration features do disabling it might mess them up too